Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment 3030350614, 9783030350611

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Abbreviations/Symbols
Chapter 1: Climate Change Basics
1.1 Let’s Set the Scene
1.2 Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases
1.2.1 The Greenhouse Effect
1.2.2 Greenhouse Gases
1.3 Anthropogenic Evidence
1.3.1 Climate Change Evidence
1.3.2 How Human Activities Produce GHGs
1.4 Climate Change Consequences
1.4.1 Climate Risks and Impacts
1.4.2 Adaptation and Mitigation
1.5 The Climate Change Convention
1.5.1 UNFCCC
1.5.2 Kyoto Protocol
1.5.3 From Kyoto to Paris
1.5.4 Paris Agreement
1.6 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
1.7 Carbon Footprint Concept
References
Chapter 2: Carbon Footprint Measurement
2.1 Why and What
2.2 International and Local Standards
2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries
2.3.1 Organizational Boundary Setting
2.3.2 Operational Boundary Setting
2.4 Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions
2.4.1 Activity Data
2.4.2 Quantifying Scope 1 Emissions
2.4.3 Quantifying Scope 2 Emissions
2.4.4 Quantifying Scope 3 Emissions (Optional)
2.5 Tracking Emissions
2.5.1 Establishing Baseline
2.5.2 Updating Baseline
2.6 Carbon Audit Process
2.7 Carbon Measurement and Reporting Tools
2.7.1 Online Calculator
2.7.2 Carbon Reporting and Disclosure
2.7.3 Software Solutions
2.8 Product Carbon Footprint
2.8.1 What Is Product Carbon Footprint?
2.8.2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
2.8.3 Steps of PCF LCA
2.8.4 Carbon Labelling Schemes
References
Chapter 3: Carbon Trading and Offsetting
3.1 Emergence of Carbon as an Asset
3.2 Emission Trading Benefits
3.3 Current Carbon Market
3.3.1 Types of Carbon Market
3.3.2 World Carbon Market
3.3.3 Project-Based Mechanisms
3.3.4 Voluntary Market
3.4 Carbon Offsetting
3.4.1 What Is Carbon Offset
3.4.2 Types of Carbon Offset Projects
3.4.3 Carbon Offset Standards
3.5 Carbon Credits
3.5.1 How Carbon Credits Are Born
3.5.2 How to Choose the Right Carbon Credits
References
Chapter 4: Carbon Management Concepts
4.1 Business Drivers
4.1.1 Cost Saving
4.1.2 Future Business Risks
4.1.3 Stakeholders’ Demand
4.1.4 Innovations
4.2 Carbon Management Framework
4.3 Target Setting
4.3.1 Carbon Intensity
4.3.2 Absolute Target vs. Intensity Target
4.3.3 Science-Based Targets
4.3.4 Cost-Effectiveness
4.3.5 Social and Community Benefits
4.4 Avoidance vs. Reduction
4.5 Switch
4.5.1 Cogeneration and Trigeneration
4.5.2 Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
4.5.3 Renewables
4.6 Reassessment and Offsetting
4.7 Carbon Management Process
4.7.1 How to Get Started?
4.7.2 Top Management Commitment
4.7.3 Establishing Working Teams
4.7.4 Initial Assessment
4.7.5 Summary of Tasks and Deliverables
4.8 Case Study
References
Chapter 5: Total Carbon Management Model
5.1 Carbon Neutrality
5.1.1 Definition
5.1.2 Steps to Demonstrate Carbon Neutrality
5.1.3 Certification of Carbon Neutral
5.2 Case Studies
5.2.1 Events
5.2.2 Hotels
5.2.3 Corporate
5.2.4 Products
5.2.5 City
5.3 Building Climate Resilience
5.3.1 Overall Approach
5.3.2 Climate Risk Assessment
5.3.3 Adaptive Measures
5.3.4 Interaction Between Adaptation and Mitigation
5.4 Total Carbon Management Model
References
Chapter 6: Carbon Management Maturity Model
6.1 What Is CM3?
6.2 Modified Carbon Management Maturity Model (mCM3)
6.2.1 Climate Basics
6.2.2 Company Level
6.2.3 Process Level
6.2.4 Product Level
6.3 Case One: A Korean Manufacturer in China
6.3.1 Company Background
6.3.2 Carbon Health Check
6.3.3 Company Level Carbon Analysis
6.3.4 Product Carbon Labelling
6.4 Case Two: An International Hotel in Australia
6.4.1 Hotel X: Carbon Management Overview
6.4.2 Stage One: Facility Carbon Management
6.4.3 Stage Two: Conference and Hotel Room Carbon Management
6.4.4 Hospitality Sector Overview
6.5 Case Three: A Japanese Firm in Hong Kong
6.5.1 A Call and a Fax
6.5.2 First Meeting
6.5.3 Proposals
References
Chapter 7: Carbon Reduction Solutions
7.1 Deep Decarbonization Pathways
7.1.1 The Three Pillars of Deep Decarbonization
7.1.2 Case Study: US Deep Decarbonization
7.1.3 Case Study: Australia Deep Decarbonization
7.1.4 Case Study: China Deep Decarbonization
7.2 Solutions for Business
7.3 Low-Carbon Buildings
7.3.1 Drivers for Low-Carbon Buildings
7.3.2 Active and Passive Design
7.3.3 Building Management and Operation
7.3.4 Green Building Labelling Schemes
7.3.5 Low-Carbon Building Development
7.4 Smart Transportation
7.4.1 Emissions from Transportation
7.4.2 Vehicle Efficiency
7.4.3 Cleaner Fuels
7.4.4 Cleaner Vehicles
7.4.5 Public Transport and Behavioural Change
7.4.6 Smart Mobility
7.5 Resource Management
7.5.1 GHG Related to Material Life Cycle
7.5.2 Reduction, Recycling and Upcycling
7.5.3 Composting
7.5.4 Combustion
7.5.5 Landfilling
7.5.6 Anaerobic Digestion
References
Index

Citation preview

Shelley W. W. Zhou

Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment

Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment

Shelley W. W. Zhou

Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment

Shelley W. W. Zhou Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

ISBN 978-3-030-35061-1    ISBN 978-3-030-35062-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35062-8 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To my parents, whose love and support sustains me; and to my son Kwan and his generation, who hold the future of our planet in their hands.

Preface

The original purpose of writing this book was to summarize my 10 years of teaching at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and to present a readily available textbook for my students, especially those MSc students who haven’t got the chance to take my course but doing the relevant carbon management research projects. But when I finished this book, I found it benefits not only students who are taking my courses but also readers from engineering and management consultants, corporate sustainability professionals, businessmen and government policy-makers who are all potential audience groups. This book first introduces the basic concepts such as climate change, the relation between our daily activities and global warming, the impacts of climate change and why carbon footprint could be a parameter to measure the impacts. It then discusses how to measure carbon footprint and organizational greenhouse gas inventories. Most importantly, carbon management models have been introduced, which provide a holistic approach for companies or individuals to manage their carbon footprint. Moreover, the book exposes the readers to the best practice of carbon solutions, in terms of green buildings, smart transportation and waste management, which are the major areas from a business perspective, and the concept of carbon trading and offsetting, as a reduction means. As the first batch of carbon consultant in this region, I have also presented various case studies to show how to develop and implement the overall carbon strategies and roadmap. I hope this book could provide sustainability practitioners and the students a comprehensive framework to conduct carbon management and could inspire the readers, no matter who they are, to study and practice further in the carbon management areas and equip them with climate change and carbon management concepts, carbon measurement skills and the competence and confidence to deliver them. Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong  Shelley W. W. Zhou

vii

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for all the friends and colleagues in encouraging me to start writing this book, persevere with it, and finally to publish it. First and foremost, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Professor Irene M.C. LO at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), who invited me to open a course on carbon management 10 years ago. Professor Lo has been my friend and mentor throughout my academic career, starting with my MPhil at HKUST in 1999. My sincere thanks to Ir. Cary CHAN, Executive Director at Hong Kong Green Building Council, Ir. Colin CHUNG, Managing Director of Property and Buildings, and Sustainable Development and Environment, China, WSP, Ir. Albert LAI, CEO at Carbon Care Asia and James DONIVAN, Co-founder and CEO at ADEC Innovations, for delivering the guest lectures for my course and offering valuable business acumen and technical advices. This book owes much to my writing advisor, “history professor” and travel companion, Robert BAXTER, who inspired me at the first place to start to work on it and shared and discussed with me throughout this project. My special thanks to Zoe KENNEDY, Michael McCABE, Faith PILACIK and Amanda QUINN at Springer, and Batmanadan KARTHIKEYAN and Shobha KARUPPIAH at SPi Global, for their help and advice during the editorial and production stages in preparing this book. Last, but not the least, I am extremely grateful to my parents for a lifetime of love, encouragement and support. Without them, this book would not have been possible.

ix

Contents

1 Climate Change Basics������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Let’s Set the Scene ������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases������������������������������������������    4 1.3 Anthropogenic Evidence����������������������������������������������������������������������    6 1.4 Climate Change Consequences������������������������������������������������������������   10 1.5 The Climate Change Convention ��������������������������������������������������������   16 1.6 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ��������������������������������������������   20 1.7 Carbon Footprint Concept��������������������������������������������������������������������   21 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   24 2 Carbon Footprint Measurement��������������������������������������������������������������   25 2.1 Why and What ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 2.2 International and Local Standards ������������������������������������������������������   26 2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries������������������������������   27 2.4 Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions��������������������������   36 2.5 Tracking Emissions������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44 2.6 Carbon Audit Process��������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 2.7 Carbon Measurement and Reporting Tools ����������������������������������������   52 2.8 Product Carbon Footprint��������������������������������������������������������������������   56 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   67 3 Carbon Trading and Offsetting����������������������������������������������������������������   69 3.1 Emergence of Carbon as an Asset��������������������������������������������������������   69 3.2 Emission Trading Benefits ������������������������������������������������������������������   71 3.3 Current Carbon Market������������������������������������������������������������������������   72 3.4 Carbon Offsetting��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   77 3.5 Carbon Credits ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   86 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 4 Carbon Management Concepts����������������������������������������������������������������   91 4.1 Business Drivers����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 4.2 Carbon Management Framework��������������������������������������������������������   96 xi

xii

Contents

4.3 Target Setting ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 4.4 Avoidance vs. Reduction����������������������������������������������������������������������  105 4.5 Switch��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 4.6 Reassessment and Offsetting ��������������������������������������������������������������  110 4.7 Carbon Management Process��������������������������������������������������������������  110 4.8 Case Study ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  116 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  120 5 Total Carbon Management Model ����������������������������������������������������������  123 5.1 Carbon Neutrality��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  124 5.2 Case Studies ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  134 5.3 Building Climate Resilience����������������������������������������������������������������  146 5.4 Total Carbon Management Model ������������������������������������������������������  156 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  159 6 Carbon Management Maturity Model����������������������������������������������������  161 6.1 What Is CM3?��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  162 6.2 Modified Carbon Management Maturity Model (mCM3) ������������������  164 6.3 Case One: A Korean Manufacturer in China ��������������������������������������  171 6.4 Case Two: An International Hotel in Australia������������������������������������  173 6.5 Case Three: A Japanese Firm in Hong Kong ��������������������������������������  180 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  183 7 Carbon Reduction Solutions ��������������������������������������������������������������������  185 7.1 Deep Decarbonization Pathways ��������������������������������������������������������  186 7.2 Solutions for Business�������������������������������������������������������������������������  193 7.3 Low-Carbon Buildings������������������������������������������������������������������������  195 7.4 Smart Transportation����������������������������������������������������������������������������  211 7.5 Resource Management������������������������������������������������������������������������  227 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  237 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  241

List of Abbreviations/Symbols

AR5 Fifth Assessment Report BPR Business Process Reengineering CDM Clean Development Mechanisms CERs Certified Emission Reductions CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CFMP Carbon Footprint Management Plan CHP Combined Heat and Power CI Carbon Intensity COP Conference of Parties DDPP Deep Decarbonization Pathway Project DOEs Designated Operational Entities ETSs Emission Trading Systems GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas GWP Global Warming Potential HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITP International Tourism Partnership JI Joint Implementation LCA Life Cycle Assessment mCM3 Modified Carbon Management Maturity Model MOD Mobility on Demand MSW Municipal Solid Waste NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PCF Product Carbon Footprint PDD Project Design Document PFCs Perfluorocarbons RCPs Representative Concentration Pathways SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SF6 Sulphur Hexafluoride xiii

xiv

TCFD TCM UNFCCC USDOT USEPA VCS VERs

List of Abbreviations/Symbols

Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure Total Carbon Management United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United States Department of Transport United States Environmental Protection Agency Verified Carbon Standard Verified Emission Reductions

Chapter 1

Climate Change Basics

1.1  Let’s Set the Scene What do these two figures (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2) tell us? • Growth domestic product (GDP) per capita has been grown substantially during the past two centuries. • Economy grows at different rates for different economies. For instance, East Asia and Africa are far below the world average. • World population has also increased dramatically, especially for the last century. What questions we may have in our minds? • What if the world continues economic growth dramatically? • What if the poor countries, as they hope and rightly deserve, catch up with the high-income countries? • What if population continues to grow? With the economic growth, people’s living quality and living conditions increase, which results in more production and consumption. Based on the growing trend from the above figures, i.e. in the business-as-usual scenario, it is anticipated there would be different levels of increased use of energy (i.e. majority from fossil fuels), depletion of natural resources, more emissions and pollutions and damage to the ecosystems, etc. The concept of planetary boundaries raised by a group of scientists at Stockholm Resilience Centre, asks the question in specificity: • What are the major challenges coming from humanity’s impact on the physical environment? • Can we identify those challenges? • Can we quantify them? • Can we identify what would be safe limits for human activity so that we can begin rather urgently because we’re late to this? © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. W. W. Zhou, Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35062-8_1

1

2

1  Climate Change Basics

Fig. 1.1  World real GDP per capita (Roser 2018)

Fig. 1.2  World population by world regions (Roser and Ortiz-Ospina 2018)

1.1 Let’s Set the Scene

3

Rockstrom et al. (2009) proposed the concept of the planetary boundary within which the Earth our planet and humanity can operate safely. The nine defined planetary boundaries as shown in Fig. 1.3 are climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone, biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle and phosphorus (P), global freshwater use, land system change, biological diversity lost, chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. Steffen et al. (2015) further approved that of these nine proposed boundaries, three (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and ocean acidification) might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and they also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. Therefore, the ultimate aim of sustainable development is to redesign our technologies and our economic growth dynamics so that we can have economic improvement while staying within the planetary boundaries. In this chapter, we will discuss the basics of climate change concepts, including its causes, the evidences and its consequences. We will then discuss the global effort

Fig. 1.3  Planetary boundaries (Steffen et al. 2015)

4

1  Climate Change Basics

in tackling climate change and introduce the term of carbon footprint, the parameter by which we measure the impact of the climate change.

1.2  Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases 1.2.1  The Greenhouse Effect The Earth’s climate is driven by a continuous flow of energy from the sun. This energy arrives mainly in the form of visible light. About 30% is immediately scattered back into space, but most of the remaining 70% passes down through the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface. The Earth must send this energy back out into space in the form of infrared radiation. While some of this infrared energy does radiate back into space, some portion is absorbed and re-emitted by water vapour and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere block infrared radiation from escaping directly from the surface to space. Infrared radiation cannot pass straight through the air like visible light. Instead, most departing energy is carried away from the surface by air currents, eventually escaping to space from altitudes above the thickest layers of the greenhouse gas blanket. Figure 1.4 illustrates the basic processes behind the greenhouse effect. The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect The enhanced greenhouse effect, sometimes referred to as climate change or global warming, is the impact on the climate from the additional heat retained due to the increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that humans have released into the Earth’s atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. It is also called the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

1.2.2  Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gas (GHG) is the gaseous constituent of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorbs and emits radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation. The main GHGs are: • • • • • • •

Water vapour Carbon dioxide Ozone Methane Nitrous oxide Halocarbons Other industrial gases

Apart from the industrial gases, all of these gases occur naturally. Together, they make up less than 1% of the atmosphere. This is enough to produce a natural

1.2 Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases

5

Fig. 1.4  An overview of the greenhouse effect. (From IPPC Working Group 1 contribution, Science of Climate Change, Second Assessment Report 1996)

g­ reenhouse effect that keeps the planet some 30 °C warmer than it would otherwise be – essential for life as we know it. Water Vapour Water vapour is the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect. It is a naturally occurring GHG, which means human activity does not directly affect it. Nevertheless, water vapour has a so-called positive feedback to climate change – warmer air can hold more moisture – and models predict that a small global warming would lead to a rise in global water vapour levels, further adding to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is currently responsible for over 60% of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide produced by human activity enters the natural carbon cycle, such as burning of fossil fuel and deforestation. Even with half of humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed by the oceans and land vegetation, atmospheric levels continue to rise by over 10% every 20 years. Aerosols A second important human influence on climate is aerosols. These clouds of microscopic particles are not a greenhouse gas. In addition to various natural sources, they

6

1  Climate Change Basics

are produced from sulphur dioxide emitted mainly by power stations and by the smoke from deforestation and the burning of crop wastes. Aerosols settle out of the air after only a few days, but they are emitted in such massive quantities that they have a substantial impact on climate. Instead of global warming, aerosols may have a global dimming effect. Most aerosols cool the climate locally by scattering sunlight back into space and by affecting clouds. Aerosol particles can block sunlight directly and also provide seeds for clouds to form, and often these clouds also have a cooling effect. Other GHGs Methane currently contributes 20% of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Methane is mainly generated from agriculture, waste dumping and coal mining and natural gas production. Nitrous oxide, a number of industrial gases and ozone contribute the remaining 20% of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxide levels have risen by 16%, mainly due to more intensive agriculture. While chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are stabilizing due to emission controls introduced under the Montreal Protocol to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, levels of long-lived gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) are increasing.

1.3  Anthropogenic Evidence 1.3.1  Climate Change Evidence The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks and options for adaptation and mitigation. Since its inception in 1988, the IPCC has prepared five multivolume assessment reports. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was released between September 2013 and November 2014. The IPCC is currently in its Sixth Assessment cycle. Figure 1.5 from IPCC AR5 (IPCC 2014a) illustrates the global warming is evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global mean sea level in the last 100 years. Warming • Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. • The period from 1983 to 2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

1.3 Anthropogenic Evidence

7

Fig. 1.5  Multiple observed indicators of a changing global climate system. (a) Observed globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850–2012. (b) Observed change in surface temperature 1901–2012. (c) Sea ice extent. (d) Global mean sea level change 1900– 2010. (e) Observed change in annual precipitation over land 1951–2010 (IPCC 2014a)

• The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85  °C, over the period 1880–2012. • The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 °C, based on the single longest dataset available. Sea Ice Extent • Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass. • Glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide. • The extent of Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased since the mid-­ twentieth century by 1.6% per decade for March and April, and 11.7% per decade for June, over the 1967–2012 period. Sea Level Rising • Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 m.

8

1  Climate Change Basics

• The rate of sea level rise since the mid-nineteenth century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia, and the rise will continue to accelerate. • It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 mm/ yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Extreme Weather • It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. • More droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. • More powerful storms and hotter, longer dry periods have been observed. Shift in Natural World • Scientists have observed climate-induced changes in at least 420 physical processes and biological species or communities. Changes include migratory birds arriving earlier in the spring and leaving later in the autumn, a lengthening by 10.8 days of the European growing season for controlled mix-species gardens from 1959 to 1993, earlier springtime reproduction for many birds and amphibians and the northward movement of cold-sensitive butterflies, beetles and dragonflies (UNEP and UNFCCC 2002).

1.3.2  How Human Activities Produce GHGs Based on IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (IPCC 2007), it was concluded that most of the observed increase in global mean temperature since the mid-­ twentieth century is “very likely” due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations; it is then emphasized on the AR5 (IPCC 2014a) that “extremely likely” (certainty >95%) that human influence is the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century. Figure 1.6 shows indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere during the Industrial Era. It can be seen that all three records show effects of the large and increasing growth in anthropogenic emissions during the Industrial Era. Use of Fossil Fuels • The supply and use of fossil fuels account for about 80% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 20% of the methane (CH4) and a significant quantity of nitrous oxide (N2O). • Coal, oil and natural gas are the main energy supply for electricity generation, transportation, heating and power supply. • Extracting, processing, transporting and distributing fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases. Deforestation • Deforestation is the second largest source of carbon dioxide.

1.3 Anthropogenic Evidence

9

• Due to the photosynthesis, trees and forest are the natural carbon sink, which can absorb carbon dioxide. Clearing forest for other land use, burning or decomposing trees, would reduce the carbon sink, which equals to increase the carbon emission on the mass balance point of view. Cement Production • Globally, approximately 3.4% of global CO2 emissions are from cement industrial sources. • CO2 is released when coal and petroleum coke are used to fuel the kilns for clinker production, as well as during the chemical process of calcination of limestones.

Fig. 1.6  Global atmospheric concentrations of three well-mixed GHGs (IPCC 2001)

10

1  Climate Change Basics

Livestock • Livestock account for 30% of the methane emissions from human activities. • Methane is produced in the animals’ digestive tracts as well as decomposition of animal manures. Agriculture • Wetland or paddy rice farming produces roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of global methane emissions from human activities. • Fertilizer use increases nitrous oxide emissions. The nitrogen contained in many mineral and organic fertilizers and manures enhances the natural processes of nitrification and denitrification that are carried out by bacteria and other microbes in the soil. These processes convert some nitrogen into nitrous oxide. Waste Management • Landfill gas (mainly in methane) will be generated at landfill site of municipal solid waste (MSW). • Biogas (methane) will be generated during the anaerobic digestion of the organic waste (e.g. food waste). • Unless methane from both cases above is captured and utilized, it will then release into the atmosphere. Industries • Industry has created a number of long-lived and potent greenhouse gases for specialized uses. • CFCs, HFCs, PFCs – used in many industries as refrigerants, blowing agents, propellants in medicinal applications and degreasing solvents. • SF6 – used as an electric insulator, heat conductor and freezing agent.

1.4  Climate Change Consequences 1.4.1  Climate Risks and Impacts Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-­ lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. It will threaten the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health and use of land and the environment. Figure 1.7 illustrates the climate impacts with more anthropogenic GHGs (Stern 2006). The climate risks and impacts are assessed based on the projected future climate changes of different mitigation scenarios, i.e. Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) (IPCC 2014a).

1.4 Climate Change Consequences

11

Warming • The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 is similar for the four RCPs and will likely be in the range 0.3–0.7 °C. • Projected increase in global mean surface temperature for the mid- and late twenty-first century, relative to the 1986–2005 period, is in the range of 1.0– 2.0 °C and 1.0–3.7 °C, respectively. • The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean. Sea Level Rising • Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the twenty-first century. • Projected change in global mean sea level rise for the mid- and late twenty-first century, relative to the 1986–2005 period, is in the range of 0.24–0.3 m and 0.40– 0.63 m, respectively. • Sea level rise will not be uniform across regions. By the end of the twenty-first century, it is very likely that sea level will rise to more than about 95% of the ocean area. • About 70% of the coastlines worldwide are projected to experience sea level change within ±20% of the global mean. Water Resources • In many regions, changing precipitation and melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality. • In presently dry regions, the frequency of droughts will likely increase by the end of the twenty-first century. In contrast, water resources are projected to increase at high latitudes. • The interaction of increased temperature; increased sediment, nutrient and pollutant loadings from heavy rainfall; increased concentrations of pollutants during droughts; and disruption of treatment facilities during floods will reduce raw water quality and pose risks to drinking water quality. • Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions, intensifying competition for water among sectors. Agriculture and Food Security • All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food production, access, use and price stability. • Due to projected climate change by the mid-twenty-first century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services. • For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production at local temperature increases of 2 °C or more above late-twentieth-century levels.

12

Fig. 1.7  Climate impacts (Stern 2006)

1  Climate Change Basics

1.4 Climate Change Consequences

13

• Global temperature increases of ~4 °C or more above late-twentieth-century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally. Biodiversity • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-­ exploitation of resources). • Approximately 20–30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5–2.5 °C. • Many terrestrial, freshwater and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change. Human Health • Increasing burden from malnutrition and diarrhoeal, cardiorespiratory and infectious diseases • Increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts • Changed distribution of some disease vectors • Substantial burden on health services

Examples of Superyphoon Impacts in Hong Kong

14

1  Climate Change Basics

The 1972 rainfall-triggered Po Shan Road landslide, Hong Kong, which killed 67 people when a 12-story apartment building was destroyed by the 50,000 m 3 flowslide. (Photo by Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong Government) (Schuster and Highland 2007)

After Mangkhut, the most intense storm in Hong Kong’s history, hit Hong Kong, South China Morning Post, a local newspaper said on 18 September 2018 that “death tolls are down but damage bills are up as pollution and development pressures leave the region more exposed to disaster”. Chuck Watson, a disaster modeller for Enki Research in the US city of Savannah, initially estimated that mainland China’s losses from Mangkhut could be as much as US$100 billion. That was on top of the US$20 billion in damage inflicted on Hong Kong (http://www.enkiops.org/blog/page/2/).

1.4.2  Adaptation and Mitigation Adaptation The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects (IPCC 2014a).

Vulnerability The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC 2014a).

1.4 Climate Change Consequences

15

Adaptation and mitigation are two complementary strategies for responding to climate change. Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects in order to either lessen or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. Mitigation is the process of reducing emissions or enhancing sinks of greenhouse gases, so as to limit future climate change. Both adaptation and mitigation can reduce and manage the risks of climate change impacts. Example: Netherlands’ Adaptation in Defending Flooding The Netherlands represents one of the most vulnerable regions to sea level rise in the world. It is a land of waterways, and 26% is below sea level, with 60% of its people and 70% of GDP earned in flood-risk areas. There is deep experience of what it takes to deal with flooding, in both financial and human terms. The Netherlands has been fighting back water for more than 1000 years, when farmers built the first dykes and an important paradigm shift is from flood protection to flood management, where Dutch people do not fight with water, but continue living with water with the adaptive infrastructures. One such example is 22 acres of reclaimed canals just outside of Rotterdam, an area called the Eendragtspolder, which serves to collect water from the Rotte River Basin when the nearby Rhine River overflows, which it is anticipated to do every 10 years due to climate change. The Eendragtspolder is also home to bike paths, water sports and a brand-new rowing course, where the World Rowing Championships were staged in 2016 summer (Bart de Jong 2016).

Example: Hong Kong’s Major Mitigation Measures

Environment Bureau (2015)

16

1  Climate Change Basics

Fig. 1.8  Climate change risk framework and management process

Figure 1.8 shows the overall framework that could be used for business decision-­ makers. The main steps of the climate risk management process include: • • • • • •

Assessing climate change impacts, both direct and indirect ones Identifying the climate risks and its vulnerabilities Establishing the decision-making criteria Identifying the possible adaptation and mitigation options Implementing the decisions and monitoring the results Reviewing the progress and reassessing the risks and improving continuously

Although this book is mainly focused on discussing the mitigation measures, i.e. how companies could reduce their carbon emission through carbon management, climate resilience is of the same importance, if not more, to companies in different sectors. Adaptation measures and how to build climate resilience will be discussed briefly in Chap. 5, as part of the total carbon management.

1.5  The Climate Change Convention 1.5.1  UNFCCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the foundation of global efforts to combat global warming. Opened for signature in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, the Convention sets out some guiding principles. The

1.5 The Climate Change Convention

17

precautionary principle says that the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone action when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage. The principle of the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of states assigns the lead in combating climate change to developed countries. • Both developed and developing countries accept a number of general commitments. • Industrialized countries undertake several specific commitments. • The richest countries shall provide new and additional financial resources and facilitate technology transfer. The supreme body of the Convention is the Conference of the Parties (COP). It held its first meeting (COP 1) in Berlin in 1995 and continues to meet on a yearly basis unless the Parties decide otherwise. The COP’s role is to promote and review the implementation of the Convention. The COP can adopt new commitments through amendments and protocols to the Convention. The two most important ones are Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. Figure 1.9 highlights the main events on UNFCCC timeline.

1.5.2  Kyoto Protocol Adopted by consensus at the third session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 3) in December 1997, Kyoto Protocol contains legally binding emissions targets for Annex I (industrialized) countries. Most members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) plus the states of Central and Eastern Europe are known collectively as Annex I countries. The developed countries are to reduce their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6) at least 5%. • Each country’s emissions target must be achieved by the period 2008–2012. • Cuts in the three most important gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O, will be measured against a base year of 1990. • Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline. • Countries will have some flexibility in how they make and measure their emission reductions.

1.5.3  From Kyoto to Paris Under the Kyoto Protocol, 38 countries called Annex B-1997 countries that account for 39% of 2010 global GHG emissions committed to a 5% decrease in their emissions between 2008 and 2012 in comparison with their base-year emissions, i.e.1990 or 1995, for some GHGs as discussed above. With the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the USA and the withdrawal of Canada in 2011, the commitments of the 36 remaining countries so-called Annex B-2012 countries accounted for 24% of

18

1  Climate Change Basics

Fig. 1.9  UNFCCC timelines

global GHG emissions in 2010. The study published in 2016 showed that the average annual aggregated GHG emissions of Annex B-2012 countries in the first commitment period, i.e. 2008–2012, were 24% below the base-year emissions, while their aggregate target was only 4% reduction. The overall Kyoto target has thus been overachieved by 2.4 GtCO2e (Shishlov et al. 2016). However, excluding the participants of two main emitters, the USA and China, and other developing countries, Kyoto Protocol could not bring the global emission down in such a short period of time. It has taken a long time in UN climate conferences to discuss a post-2012 target and a legally binding agreement that could involve all the nations. COP 15  in 2009 at Copenhagen was a culmination of a 2-year negotiating process under the Bali Roadmap for a post-2012 framework, and at COP-18 in 2012 at Doha, Qatar, an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted which ultimately created a second commitment period among member Parties, and it extended the Protocol from 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2020. Another three years passed till the COP 21 sustainable development summit, held in Paris, all UNFCCC participants signed the “Paris Agreement” effectively replacing the Kyoto Protocol.

1.5.4  Paris Agreement In December 2015 at COP 21 in Paris, 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal Paris Agreement. The agreement sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The agreement is due to enter into force in 2020. It provides a bridge between today’s policies and climate neutrality before the end of the century.

1.5 The Climate Change Convention

19

Mitigation Governments agreed: • The long-term goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 °C • Urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5  °C, since this would significantly reduce risks and the impacts of climate change • On the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognizing that this will take longer for developing countries • To undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with the best available science • Establishing binding commitments by all Parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them It should be noted that while Kyoto Protocol is mainly a top-down approach, universally participated Paris Agreement has an innovative hybrid structure blending both top-down and bottom-up elements. Transparency and Global Stocktake Governments agreed: • To submit new NDCs every 5  years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones • To report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs and to undergo international review • To track progress towards the long-term goal through a robust transparency and accountability system Adaptation Governments agreed: • To strengthen societies’ ability to deal with the impacts of climate change • To provide continued and enhanced international support for adaptation to developing countries Support • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too. • Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025. China’s Nationally Determined Actions by 2030 • To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak earlier • To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60–65% from the 2005 level • To increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% • To increase the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic metres on the 2005 level

20

1  Climate Change Basics

1.6  Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In the same year of Paris climate conference, actually just 3 months before it, the UN General Assembly adopted the outcome document named Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in short form known as 2030 Agenda. It set out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets to be reached by 2030 with an aim to eliminate poverty and bring the world on a path to sustainable development. As shown in Fig. 1.10, most the first nine goals are about the economic dimension – ending poverty and ensuring access to basic needs like food, health and education, water and cleaner energy services. SDGs 5, 10 and 16 are especially about social inclusion – SDG 5 on gender equality, SDG 10 on reducing inequality and SDG 16 on peace and justice of the society. Then goals 11–15 are primarily the environmental objectives – sustainable cities, sustainable production and consumption, biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem both in the oceans and on land and SDG 13 on climate change. Finally, SDG 17 says all these economic, social and environmental goals should be achieved in collective effort by partnership. Now SDG 13. Based on 2030 Agenda, it says “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” with three targets: 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. There is an asterisk next to the goal 13 on the UN’s document 2030 Agenda; with a footnote it acknowledges UNFCCC as the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change. It thus does not set

Fig. 1.10  Sustainable Development Goals

1.7 Carbon Footprint Concept

21

specific, measurable targets for mitigation or adaptation, leaving that task to the Paris Agreement. So how climate actions formulated in NDCs as described by Paris Agreement correspond to SDGs and particularly SDG 13? NDC-SDG Connections is a joint initiative of the German Development Institute (DIE) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). They connect climate action to each of 17 SDGs. Here are their findings: • Although only SDG 13 is explicitly about tackling climate change, all aspects of sustainable development will be impacted by the effects of a changing climate and by the actions of countries under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, embodied in countries’ NDCs. • While all NDCs are inherently connected to SDG 13, only 6% of activities directly correspond to this goal. A reason for this is that the SDG targets are relatively narrow and focus on adaptive capacity, policy mainstreaming and education and awareness. Other relevant issues are related to climate mitigation or covered by, for example, SDG 7 on cleaner energy. • At the level of targets, the NDC activities most frequently relate to target 13.2 and target 13.3. Target 13.1 is not equally prominent. • In terms of climate actions, countries address mainly issues like awareness-­ raising on climate impacts. Many SDG 13-relevenat NDC activities refer to themes highly relevant for other SDGs, including energy (SDG 7) and education (SDG 4) as well as resilience and disaster risk management, which appear under several SDGs, most notably SDG 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities). More information can be found from https://klimalog.die-gdi.de/ndc-sdg/sdg/13. In this book, I will discuss what Paris Agreement means to business sectors and individual organizations: –– How companies could set the carbon reduction target to contribute its share to Paris Agreement –– How companies could take deep decarbonization pathway –– How they could build up their climate resilience and capacity Relevant SDGs will also be addressed in Chap. 7 on reduction solutions, especially for building sector.

1.7  Carbon Footprint Concept In this chapter so far, we have discussed the enhanced greenhouse effects from anthropogenic GHGs generated by human’s activities, the evidence of the climate change issues and the impacts and consequences projected by IPCC, which is summarized in Fig. 1.11. The question to us next is “Can we measure the impacts? If yes, how?”

22

1  Climate Change Basics

Fig. 1.11  Climate change processes and impacts

Carbon Footprint is a parameter that measures the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced, measured in unit of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).

In this book, same as defined in GHG Protocol (WBCSD and WRI 2010), carbon footprint measures six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) (Table 1.1). Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass of GHG is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (whose GWP is by convention equal to 1). GWP is a factor of: • Radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of CO2 • Decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of CO2 (Table 1.2) For GHGs other than CO2:  CO2e = mass emitted × GWP (100) of substance For fossil fuel/power consumption:  CO2e = unit of consumption × emission factor (EF) Table 1.3 shows some activities in Hong Kong that emit 1 tonne of carbon footprint. It tells us that carbon footprint is the parameter used for measurement and for comparison, from which we could get a lower carbon solution. For instance, when we talk about food, to consume the same amount of food, beef has a much higher carbon emission than vegetables.

1.7 Carbon Footprint Concept

23

Table 1.1  Six Kyoto gases Symbol Name CO2 Carbon dioxide CH4 Methane

N2O HFCs PFCs SF6

Common sources Fossil fuel combustion, forest clearing, cement production, etc. Landfills, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, fermentation from the digestive system of livestock, rice cultivation, fossil fuel combustion, etc. Nitrous oxide Fossil fuel combustion, fertilizers, nylon production, manure, etc. Hydrofluorocarbons Refrigeration gases, aluminium smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, etc. Perfluorocarbons Aluminium production, semiconductor industry, etc. Sulphur Electrical transmissions and distribution systems, circuit hexafluoride breakers, magnesium production, etc.

Table 1.2  Global warming potential GHGs CO2 CH4 N2O HFC-134a PFC-14 SF6

GWP 100-year time horizon TAR (IPCC 2001) SAR (IPCC 1995)a 1 1 21 23 310 296 1,300 1,300 6,500 23,900 22,200

AR4 (IPCC 2007) 1 25 298 1,430 7,390 22,800

For no specific reason, the following examples of calculation in this book will use the GWP based on SAR (IPCC 1995)

a

Table 1.3  One tonne of carbon footprint in Hong Kong’s perspective Activity Electricity consumption Transportation

Food consumption

Paper waste Treeb

Activity dataa Hong Kong Island Kowloon Driving Taxi MTR Beef Chicken Vegetables Landfilling

1,250 kWh 2,000 kWh 600 litre gasoline 8,264 km (~ HK$ 47 K) 128,205 km (~ HK$ 87 K) 37.5 kg 357 kg 20 tonnes 208 kg 44 trees

The data in this table is the estimated data for reference only Here means as a carbon sink, 44 trees can absorb 1 tonne of carbon emission every year

a

b

24

1  Climate Change Basics

References Bart de Jong (2016) Flood defense in the Netherlands: a story of adaptation, presented at 2016DC flood summit at Gallaudet University, September 8, 2016 Environment Bureau (2015) Hong Kong climate change report 2015. Environment Bureau in collaboration with Development Bureau, Transport & Housing Bureau, Commerce & Economic Development Bureau, Food & Health Bureau, Security Bureau. November 2015 IPCC (1995) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of WGI to the Second Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 398 pp IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. IPCC (2014a) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp Roser M (2018) Economic growth. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth [online resource] Roser M, Ortiz-Ospina E (2018) World population growth. Published online at OurWorldInData. org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth [online resource] Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol14/iss2/art32/ Schuster RL, Highland LM (2007) The third Hans Cloos lecture. Urban landslides: socioeconomic impacts and overview of mitigative strategies. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66:1–27 Shishlov I, Morel R, Bellassen V (2016) Compliance of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in the first commitment period. Clim Pol 16(6):768–782 Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE et  al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):1259855. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1259855 Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm UNEP and UNFCCC (2002) Climate change information kit. Updated in July 2001 based on the IPCCs Climate Change: 2001 assessment report and current activities under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Published by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Climate Change Secretariate (UNFCCC) and sponsored by UNEP, the UN Development Programme, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the UN Institute for Training and Research, the World Meteorological Organization, the World Health Organization, and the UNFCCC. Edited by Michael Williams World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute (2010) The greenhouse gas protocol, a corporate accounting and reporting standard, revised version. https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard

Chapter 2

Carbon Footprint Measurement

2.1  Why and What From the above discussion, we know that carbon footprint is a parameter that measures the GHG emissions from the human’s activities. In this chapter, we will further discuss how to measure this parameter or, in other words, how to prepare a GHG inventory. What we measure is “something’s” carbon footprint and that “something” could be a building, a hotel, a company, a factory, a production line, a product, an event, an exhibition, etc., and we only focus on six Kyoto gases, as we mentioned in Sect. 1.7. Why We Measure? In 2006, Carbon Trust, a not-for-profit UK organization, helped PepsiCo to measure the carbon footprint of its Walkers crisps. Carbon Trust has gone through Walkers’ supply chain, measured the direct energy consumption at each life cycle stage of a packet of crisps and calculated the carbon footprint for each stage, the contribution of which are listed below: 1 . Raw materials: potatoes, sunflowers and seasoning and packaging (40%) 2. Manufacture: producing crisps from potatoes (30%) 3. Packaging (18%) 4. Distribution (10%) 5. Disposal of the empty packs (2%) Raw materials and manufacturing are the largest sources (around 70%) of emissions across the crisps’ life cycle. It was also found during the study that potatoes were purchased by weight, and Walkers paid a price per tonne of potatoes to farmers. Thus, in order to get more money, farmers stored their potatoes in artificially humidified warehousing shed, where humidified atmosphere increased water content of potatoes. Humidifiers used large amounts of energy and generated significant emissions on the farm, while extra moisture in potatoes also

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. W. W. Zhou, Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35062-8_2

25

26

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

needed more energy (around 10%) in frying at the manufacturing site. Walkers then engaged with its potato suppliers to reduce emissions through better ­agricultural and storage practices. It also scoured its own production facilities for opportunities to cut energy use, resulting in 33% reduction in energy use per kg crisps (Carbon Trust 2006, 2008). This example tells us that carbon footprint measurement not only gives us the carbon footprint data (e.g. 75 g CO2e per packet of crisps); it also helps to identify the hotspots where and how to reduce the emission (e.g. between 2007 and 2009, Walkers reduced its carbon footprint by 7%, creating an overall saving of 4,800 tonnes of CO2e), which is our ultimate purpose in managing our carbon footprint to reduce the induced climate impacts. Measurement is the first step of management and also the most important step before reduction. We need to understand where we are, before we know which direction to take and how to move forwards. Global climate change is one of the most challenging issues facing policy makers and industry today. We need scientific measurements to improve our understanding of this global issue, which provides the foundation to deliver policies for mitigating climate change, and to accelerate the development of low carbon technologies.

2.2  International and Local Standards Table 2.1 lists different international standards for carbon footprint measurement and reporting for different applications. For organizations, the commonly used standards are ISO 14064-1 (ISO 2018a) and GHG Protocol (WBCSD/WRI 2010). In Australia, the UK, the USA and Hong Kong, both standards are adopted, and additional guidance on local situations, such as local emission factors, is further added into the local or national standards, which is summarized in Table 2.2. Table 2.1  International standards for carbon footprint measurement Application International standards Organization ISO 14064-1: Greenhouse Gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals WBCSD/WRI: The GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard Projects ISO 14064-2: Greenhouse Gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements WBCSD/WRI: The GHG Protocol for Project Accounting Products and ISO 14067: Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and services guidelines for quantification Publicly Available Specification – PAS 2050 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services WRI/WBCSD: The Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard

2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries

27

Table 2.2  Local standards or tools for carbon footprint measurement Application National standards Organizations Australia Department of the Environment and Energy: The National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors UK DEFRE/DECC Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions USEPA Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Buildings HKEPD and EMSD Guidelines: Guidelines to Account for and Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals for Buildings (Commercial, Residential or Institutional Purposes) in Hong Kong

2.3  Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries The first step in the carbon footprint measurement or development of a GHG emission inventory is to define the boundaries of the measurement or the inventory. These boundaries refer to the coverage and extent that will be taken into account for the measurement, i.e. they determine what should be included and what can be excluded. Organizational boundaries define the operations, facilities and entities that are to be included in the inventory, while operational boundaries identify emission sources and categorize the emissions resulting either directly or indirectly from the organization’s operations, facilities and entities. In this section, we will discuss how to define these two boundaries, mainly based on the GHG corporate protocol.

2.3.1  Organizational Boundary Setting Business operations vary in their legal and organizational structures and include wholly owned operations, subsidiaries, incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures, etc. Organizational boundaries determine which operations, facilities and entities owned or controlled by the reporting company should be reported, depending on the approach chosen. The company should consistently apply the selected approach to define those businesses and operations that constitute the company for the purpose of accounting and reporting GHG emissions. For corporate reporting, two approaches can be used to define the organizational boundaries: the equity share approach and the control approach (Fig. 2.1). Equity Share Approach:  A company accounts for GHG emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. • The equity share reflects the percentage of economic interest. • Equity share normally is the same as the ownership percentage. • If you choose the equity share approach, you must report all emissions sources that are wholly owned and partially owned according to your entity’s equity share in each. Control Approach:  A company accounts for 100 percent of the GHG emissions from operations over which it has control. It does not account for GHG emissions

28

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Defining Organizational Boudaries for Carbon Accounting Control Approach Equity Share Approach Financial Control

Operational Control

Fig. 2.1  Summary of different approaches to define the organizational boundaries

from operations in which it owns an interest but has no control. Control can be defined in either financial or operational terms. When using the control approach to consolidate GHG emissions, companies shall choose between either the operational control or financial control criteria. • An entity has operational control over an operation if the entity or one of its subsidiaries has the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies. The entity that holds the operating licence for an operation typically has operational control. • An entity has financial control over an operation if the entity has the ability to direct the financial policies of the operation with an interest in gaining economic benefits from its activities. Financial control usually exists if the entity has the right to the majority of the benefits of the operation; however, these rights are conveyed. An entity has financial control over an operation if the operation is considered a group company or subsidiary for the purpose of financial consolidation, i.e. if the operation is fully consolidated in financial accounts. Each consolidation approach  – equity share, operational control and financial control – has advantages and disadvantages. The operational and financial control approaches may best facilitate performance tracking of GHG management policies and be most compatible with the majority of regulatory programmes. However, these may not fully reflect the financial risks and opportunities associated with climate change, compromising financial risk management. On the other hand, the equity share approach best facilitates financial risk management by reflecting the full financial risks and opportunities associated with climate change, but may be less effective at tracking the operational performance of GHG management policies. The company decides which approach to use to define its organizational boundaries for carbon footprint measurement or GHG inventory. The consultant helping the company in this exercise or the staff in the company preparing the inventory should consult with the company’s accounting or legal staff and/or management to understand company’s legal structure, each operation’s financial accounting ­category, its financial and operating control policies, etc. Table 2.3 lists out all the financial accounting categories and the organizational boundaries based on equity share and financial control approaches.

Financial accounting definition The parent company has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the company with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities. Normally, this category also includes incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parent company has financial control. Group companies/subsidiaries are fully consolidated, which implies that 100 percent of the subsidiary’s income, expenses, assets and liabilities are taken into the parent company’s profit and loss account and balance sheet, respectively. Where the parent’s interest does not equal 100 percent, the consolidated profit and loss account and balance sheet shows a deduction for the profits and net assets belonging to minority owners The parent company has significant influence over the operating and financial policies of the company, but does not have financial control. Normally, this category also includes incorporated and nonincorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parent company has significant influence, but not financial control. Financial accounting applies the equity share method to associated/affiliated companies, which recognizes the parent company’s share of the associate’s profits and net assets Joint ventures/partnerships/operations are proportionally consolidated, i.e. each partner accounts for their proportionate interest of the joint venture’s income, expenses, assets and liabilities

Non-incorporated joint ventures/partnerships/ operations where partners have joint financial control Fixed asset investments The parent company has neither significant influence nor financial control. This category also includes incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parent company has neither significant influence nor financial control. Financial accounting applies the cost/dividend method to fixed asset investments. This implies that only dividends received are recognized as income, and the investment is carried as cost Franchises The franchiser will not have equity rights or control over the franchise. Therefore, franchises should not be included in consolidation of GHG emission data. However, if the franchiser does have equity rights or operational/financial control, then the same rules for consolidation under the equity or control approaches apply

Associated/affiliated companies

Accounting category Group companies/ subsidiaries

Table 2.3  Reporting based on equity share versus financial control

0% of GHG emissions

Equity share of GHG emissions 0% of GHG emissions

100% of GHG emissions

Equity share of GHG emissions 0% of GHG emissions

Equity share of GHG emissions

Financial control 100% of GHG emissions

Equity share of GHG emissions

Equity share Equity share of GHG emissions

Approach

30

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Example #1 (Adopted from The Climate Registry (2008)) Given: Company A has 60 percent ownership and full control of Facility #1 under both the financial and operational control criteria. Company B has 40 percent ownership of the facility and does not have control. Question: As the reporting entity, shall Company A or Company B report the emission from Facility #1? Answer: Under the equity share approach, Companies A and B would report 60 percent and 40 percent of GHG emissions of Facility #1, respectively, based on their share of ownership. Under either criterion for control, Company A would report 100 percent of GHG emissions for Facility #1, while Company B would report none. 0% means Facility #1 is not within the reporting entity’s organizational boundary, but the reporting entity, i.e. Company B in this case, still has the option to report it. Reporting entity Company A Company B

Ownership of Facility #1 (%) 60 40

Equity share approach (%) 60 40

Financial control approach (%) 100 0

Operational control approach (%) 100 0

Example #2 (Adopted from The Climate Registry (2008)) Given: Company A and Company B each has 50 percent ownership of Facility #1. Company B has the authority to implement its operational and HSE policies, but all significant capital decisions require approval of both Company A and Company B since they have joint financial control. Question: As the reporting entity, shall Company A or Company B report the emission from Facility #1? Answer: Each reports 50 percent of GHG emissions under the financial control and equity share approaches. Under the operational control approach, Company B reports 100 percent of the facility’s emissions, while Company A reports none. Reporting entity Company A Company B

Ownership of Facility #1 (%) 50 50

Equity share approach (%) 50 50

Financial control approach (%) 50 50

Operational control approach (%) 0 100

2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries

Example #3: Landlord and Tenant Hysan Place is a 40-storey retail/office building in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong. Developed by Hysan Development Company Limited, the building gets numerous green building awards and becomes the landmark of Causeway Bay. American fashion brand Hollister California opened its first store in Hong Kong Island in a 20,000 sq. ft. space in its shopping mall. KPMG is the first office tenant. Given: KPMG has signed a 9-year lease for the 20th to the 25th floors of the building, taking up an area of approximately 80,000 sq. ft. in Hysan Place, under an operating lease contract. Question: Shall the landlord Hysan Development Co. Ltd. and/or the tenant KPMG report the emission from leased office, i.e. 20th to 25th floors? Answer: Operating lease enables the lessee to operate an asset, like a building or vehicle, but does not give the lessee any of the risks or rewards of owning the asset. Hence, reporting on an equity share or a financial control approach, as the building owner or the landlord Hysan Development Co. Ltd. owns the building, it should report the emission from the building, which includes the leased office, while as the tenant KPMG does not own (or have a financial interest in) the office building, it would not be required to report emissions associated with the office. Although the tenant is not required to report emissions associated with the leased office when it uses the equity share or financial control approaches, it may opt to report these emissions at their wills. Using the operational control approach, the tenant KPMG must include all the emissions resulting from leased office, i.e. the 20th to the 25th floors, because it has effective operational control over the space and all of the emission sources within the space. For the building owner or the landlord, it would not be required to report the emissions from the leased space, since effective control over the building’s emissions passes to the tenant under an operating lease. The landlord in this case should report the emissions from communal areas, such as the corridors, podium, lift lobbies, car park, sky gardens, etc. Reporting Equity share or financial entity control approach Landlord Must report emissions from leased asset Tenant May opt to report emissions from leased asset

Operational control approach May opt to report emissions from leased asset, but must report emissions from communal areas Must report emissions from leased asset

In summary, if the company has an asset such as a leased office or a rented vehicle under an operational lease, the company is required to report the emission if the company is using the operational control approach.

31

32

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Example #4 (Adopted from The Climate Registry (2008)) Given: Alpha, Inc. has five wholly owned or joint operations: Beta, Gamma, Delta, Pi and Omega. The following table outlines the organizational structure of Alpha, Inc. Question: Define the percent of emissions from each of its sub-entities that is included in the parent company’s total entity-wide emissions using equity share, operational control and financial control. Answer: As shown in the table below.

Wholly owned and joint operations Legal of Alpha, structure and partners Inc.

Economic interest held by Alpha, Inc. (%)

Control of operating policies

Treatment in Alpha, Inc.’s financial Equity share accounts approach (%)

Beta

Incorporated 100 company

Alpha

Gamma

Incorporated company Non-­ incorporated joint venture; partners have joint financial control; other partner is Epsilon Subsidiary of Gamma Incorporated joint venture; other partner is Lambda

40

Alpha

100 Wholly owned subsidiary Subsidiary 40

50 by Beta

Epsilon

Via Beta

75 by Gamma 56

Gamma

Via 30% Gamma (75% × 40%) Subsidiary 56

Delta

Pi Omega

Lambda

Operational control approach (%)

Financial control approach (%)

100

100

100

100

50 0 (50% × 100%)

50

100

100

0

100

2.3.2  Operational Boundary Setting Operational boundaries determine the direct and indirect emissions associated with operations owned or controlled by the reporting company. Defining the operational boundaries includes to identify emissions associated with its operations, categorize them as direct and indirect emissions and choose the scope of accounting and reporting for indirect emissions.

2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries

33

Fig. 2.2  Emissions and scopes. (WBCSD/WRI 2010)

Direct GHG emissions are emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Indirect GHG emissions are emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the company but occur at sources owned or controlled by another company. What is classified as direct and indirect emissions is dependent on the consolidation approach (equity share or control) selected for setting the organizational boundary. For instance, in Example #3, using operational control approach, the leased office is not in the landlord’s organizational boundaries. But the landlord could still report the emission from the leased office as an indirect emission for the landlord. Based on GHG Protocol (WBCSD/WRI 2010), emissions can be categorized into three scopes, as illustrated in Fig. 2.2. • Scope 1: All direct GHG emissions (with the exception of direct CO2 emissions from biomass combustion). • Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, heating or cooling. • Scope 3: All other indirect emissions not covered in Scope 2, such as upstream and downstream emissions, emissions resulting from the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the reporting entity (e.g. employee commuting and business travel), use of sold products and services, outsourced activities, recycling of used products, waste disposal, etc. Scope 1: Direct Emissions Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources that a company owns or controls and must be reported by the company. The direct emissions are mainly from: • Stationary combustion of onsite generation of electricity, heat or steam

34

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

• Physical or chemical processing, such as the methane gas from the anaerobic digestion, carbon dioxide from cement plant, etc. • Mobile combustion of fuels used for transportation of materials, products’ waste and employees by company’s own vehicles • Fugitive emissions unintentionally released from the production, processing, transmission, storage and use of fuels and other substances that do not pass through a stack, chimney, vent, exhaust pipe or other functionally equivalent opening (such as releases of sulphur hexafluoride from electrical equipment; hydrofluorocarbon releases during the use of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment; and methane leakage from natural gas transport) The combustion of biomass and biomass-based fuels (such as wood, timber waste, landfill gas, biofuels, etc.) emits GHGs directly. Unlike other fuels, CO2 emissions from biomass combustion should be reported separately from the scopes, as required by the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006). Scope 2: Electricity Indirect Emissions Scope 2 emissions are the indirect emissions that occur when the reporting entity purchases and consumes electricity, heat or steam (generated at a source not owned or controlled by the reporting entity). Scope 2 emissions are a special category of indirect emissions, because purchased electricity represents one of the largest sources of GHG emissions and the most significant opportunity to reduce these emissions. Scope 2 emissions must be reported. Scope 3: Other Indirect Emissions Scope 3 includes all other indirect greenhouse gas emissions. It is optional to report Scope 3 emissions, which can be emitted from: • • • • • • • • •

Extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels Upstream transport-related activities, such as transport of raw materials and fuels Staff commuting Business travels Downstream transport-related activities, such as transport of products and waste Electricity-related activities not included in Scope 2 Leased assets, franchise and outsourced activities Use of sold products and services Waste disposal Example #1 This example is from GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, and for further and detailed information on how to account for emissions from electricity-related activities, refer to the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition), Chap. 4 and Appendix A (WBCSD/WRI 2010).

2.3 Corporate Carbon Audit: Defining the Boundaries

Given: As shown in Fig. 2.3, Company A is an independent power generator that owns a power generation plant. The power plant produces 100 MWh of electricity and releases 20 tonnes of emissions per year. Company B is an electricity trader and has a supply contract with Company A to purchase all its electricity. Company B resells the purchased electricity (100 MWh) to Company C, a utility company that owns/controls the Transmission and Distribution (T&D) system. Company C consumes 5 MWh of electricity in its T&D system and sells the remaining 95 MWh to Company D. Company D is an end-user who consumes the purchased electricity (95 MWh) in its own operations. Question: Categorize the emissions from electricity-related activities for different companies. Answer: Twenty tonnes of emissions are from the onsite power generation, so it is the direct emission under Scope 1 for Company A. Company B, as an electricity trader, buys and sells electricity. Electricity is a product of Company B. The embodied carbon emission, i.e. 20 tonnes in this case, is the Scope 3 emission for Company B. There are two emissions for Company C: 19 tonnes from the generation of 95 MWh purchased electricity that is sold to end-user D and 1 tonne from 5 MWh purchased electricity that it consumes in its T&D. Since Company C is consuming only the 5 MWh associated with its T&D system losses, only the emissions resulting from the generation of this 5 MWh qualify as Scope 2 emissions for Company C. Since Company C does not consume the remaining 95 MWh but rather resells this power, the emissions associated with the 95 MWh represent Scope 3 emissions for Company C. Emissions from 95 MWh electricity purchased and consumed by Company D is the Scope 2 emission for end-user D, while emissions associated with upstream T&D losses is the Scope 3 for end-user D.

Fig. 2.3  GHG accounting from the sale and purchase of electricity

35

Example #2 Figure 2.4 summarizes the requirements in Hong Kong, based on the local guidelines (EMSD/EPD 2010).

Fig. 2.4  Operational boundaries required by Hong Kong’s guidelines. (EMSD/EPD 2010)

2.4  Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions After defining the organizational and operational boundaries for the reporting company, the next step is to calculate carbon footprint for each emission source. The most commonly used quantification method is the calculation by using activity data multiple the relevant emission conversion factor. Emission data are then summed up under each scope for a specific operation. For corporate carbon auditing, activity data would be obtained from the reporting company, and the emission conversion factors would be found from the local guidelines. If a specific emission factor cannot be obtained from the local guidebook, IPCC Guidelines and/or other national standards could be referred. In this section, it will be illustrated how to quantify the emissions, mainly based on Hong Kong guidelines, and take reference to IPCC and some other countries’ standards as well.

2.4.1  Activity Data To collect the activity data of the business operation is a very important step in carbon measurement. Table  2.4 lists out some activity data and their possible data sources. Carbon or corporate sustainability consultants should prepare the data collection template for their clients to collect the activity data for carbon auditing. Corporate sustainability personnel also needs to understand where and how they could get the activity data internally before conducting the carbon inventory.

Table 2.4  Activity data and its data source Emissions

Activity data

Documents

Direct emission from stationary combustion Direct emission from mobile combustion Direct emission from process Direct emission from refrigeration Indirect emission from purchased electricity Indirect emission from Towngas Indirect emission from freshwater usage Indirect emission from sewage discharge Indirect emission from waste disposal Indirect emission from air travels

Fuel consumption

Monthly utility bills, fuel purchase records, inventory of stationary combustion facilities, if any Gas station card data, fuel purchased records, vehicle mileage data Manufacturing – raw material inputs, production output, chemical reaction, biological process, etc. Contractor refill records, refrigerant purchased records Electricity bills

Fuel consumption Inputs and outputs Mass of refrigerant leaked Electricity consumption Towngas consumption Water consumption Sewage discharge amount Waste disposed amount Flight type and distance

Towngas bills Water bills Water bills Waste collector records, waste recycling records Business trips records, air tickets

2.4.2  Quantifying Scope 1 Emissions Example #1: Stationary Combustion Given: Diesel generator is a main polluter and emission source at a construction site. Assume 1,000 l diesel fuels have been consumed during last month at a construction site in Hong Kong. Question: What is the carbon footprint from this stationary combustion? Answer: Activity data, AD 1,000 litres – –

Fuel type Diesel oil LPG Towngas

CO2 emission factor, EFCO2a 2.614 kg/litre 3.017 kg/kg 2.549 kg/unit

CH4 emission factor, EFCH4a 0.0239 g/litre 0.020 g/kg 0.0446 g/unit

N2O emission factor, EFN2Oa 0.0074 g/litre 0.000 g/kg 0.0099 g/unit

The emission factors are from Hong Kong’s guidelines (EMSD/EPD 2010)

a

CF = AD × EFCO2 + AD × EFCH4 × GWPCH4 + AD × EFN2O × GWPN2O



= 1,000 × 2.614 + 1, 000 × 0.00239 / 1,000 × 21 + 1,000 × 0.0074 / 1,000 × 310 = 2.616 tonnes CO 2 e



∴ Carbon footprint of the activity – stationary combustion of diesel fuel from onsite generator is 2.616 tonnes of CO2e.

38

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Example #2: Mobile Combustion Given: Company X in Hong Kong owns a passenger car and consumed 1,000 litres of gasoline during the last fiscal year. Question: How much carbon has been emitted from this vehicle during the past year? Answer: Activity data, AD – 1,000 litres

Fuel type Diesel oil Unleaded petrol

CO2 emission factor, EFCO2a 2.614 kg/litre 2.36 kg/litre

CH4 emission factor, EFCH4a 0.072 g/litre 0.253 g/litre

N2O emission factor, EFN2Oa 0.110 g/litre 1.105 g/litre

The emission factors are from Hong Kong’s guidelines (EMSD/EPD 2010)

a

CF = AD × EFCO2 + AD × EFCH4 × GWPCH4 + AD × EFN2O × GWPN2O



= 1,000 × 2.36 + 1, 000 × 0.253 / 1,000 × 21 + 1,000 ×1.105 / 1,000 × 310 = 2.708 tonnes CO 2 e



∴ Carbon footprint of the activity – mobile combustion of unleaded petrol from the company-owned passenger car of last year is 2.708 tonnes of CO2e.

Example #3: Emissions from Biofuels Biofuels are treated as cleaner and lower emission fuels. Bioethanol is an alcohol made by fermenting the sugar components of plant materials, mostly from sugar and starch crops. Biodiesel is made from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled greases. With the more widely acceptable use of biofuels for vehicles in business, corporate sustainability executives or carbon consultants are usually the ones who are approached and asked how much carbon is reduced by using biofuels, replacing the diesel or gasoline. However, there are no international standards on calculating carbon emission from the combustion of biofuels. In addition, lots of local governments haven’t published their biofuel emission factor. In addition, it has been challenged whether biofuels are green alternatives to fossil fuels, as biofuels need a lot of land which reduces the carbon sink, the manufacturing process of biofuels is not efficient, and the combustions of biofuels also emit GHGs (Steer and Hanson 2015). While it is difficult to calculate the emissions from biofuels, I would like to discuss come concepts and introduce some treatment of biofuels in carbon audit in this section. Firstly, this book is talking about the anthropogenic GHG

2.4 Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions

39

emission, and due to its biogenic nature, emission from burning of biofuels cannot be reported under Scope 1, but should be reported separately. Secondly, we still need to report the emissions from non-biogenic portion of the biofuels. The following example will illustrate the calculation and reporting method for biofuels. Given: A US agriculture company used 1,000 gallons of B20 for its tractor for the last farming season. Question: What is CO2 emission of this activity, and how much CO2 has been reduced compared with use of the same amount of diesel for this tractor? Answer:

∴ B 20 = 20% × B100 + 80% × diesel.



∴ Direct CO 2emission from diesel = 1,000 × 80% × 10.15 = 8.12 tonnes CO 2



Reduced CO 2emission = 1,000 × 20% × 10.15 = 2.03tonnesCO 2 .



CO 2emission from biogenic source = 1,000 × 20% × 9.46 = 1.89 tonnes CO 2 .





The above emission factors for diesel and B100 are from US guidelines (The Climate Registry 2008).

Example #4: Process Emissions Direct emissions from anaerobic wastewater plant: where:

CH 4 emission = ( OC − S) × EF − R.



OC = BOD or COD enters anaerobic treatment system S = Organic content removed in the sludge EF = Emission factor R = Methane recovery, capture or flaring onsite The calculation methodology and emission factors can be found from IPCC 2006, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5, Wastewater (IPCC 2006).

40

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Example #5: Fugitive Emissions Given: You commissioned a contractor to refill the refrigerants for your facility and got a summary table from your contractor as below:

Refrigerant GWP CFC-13 14,400 HCFC-22 (R22) 1,500 HFC-23 11,700

Amount, kg 100 100 100

Question: What is the carbon footprint of fugitive emissions of the refrigerants? Answer:

Fig. 2.5  Mass balance of the refrigerant

Activity data of fugitive emission from the refrigerants is the released weight of the refrigerants, Creleased. Figure 2.5 shows the mass balance of the refrigerant. Creleased = Cin + Ca − Cout − Cd .



In majority of the cases, like this one, how much refrigerant at the beginning of the reporting period and how much left in the end of the reporting period are unknown. In addition, it is assumed there is no disposal during the reporting period. Therefore, Creleased = Ca.

Refrigerant CFC-13 HCFC-22 (R22) HFC-23

Activity data, Kg 100 100 100

Carbon footprint, tonnes Emission factor, GWP CO2e 14,400 1,440 1,500 150 11,700 1,170

2.4 Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions

It should be noted here that carbon footprint measurement only covers the Kyoto gases, as we mentioned in Sect. 1.7. CFCs and HCFCs should not be reported under Scope 1, but be reported separately. CFCs and HCFCs are commonly used types of refrigerants, and some also have very high global warming potentials. The reason of not reporting them is that as high ozone-­ depleting gases, they are well covered by Montreal Protocol, which is the most successful global treaty in combating ozone layer depletion. The direction emission from fugitive emission of refrigerant in this example is then 1,170 tonnes.

Example #6: GHG Removal Trees and plants could remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the photosynthesis process. Trees and plants are called carbon sink. Although for GHG protocol corporate accounting, there is no method on how to account GHG removal from natural sequestration, some local government would publish their own method or emission factor for sequestration. In this case, GHG removal should be reported under Scope 1. Given: Company A planted 2,000 trees in Hong Kong in its last reporting year. Question: How much carbon has been removed for Company A last year? Answer: Based on Hong Kong’s guidelines (EMSD/EPD 2010). CO2 removed by trees in 1 year = net number of additional trees planted since the concerned building is constructed × removal factor (estimated at 23 kg/tree∗). ∗The figure is applicable to all trees commonly found in Hong Kong which are able to reach to at least 5 metres in height. So, is the answer simply 23 × 2,000/1,000 = 46 tonnes carbon removal? It should be noted that carbon removal is the GHG sequestration that happened within the organizational boundary of the reporting entity. It is different from carbon offsetting, which is happening outside of the organizational boundaries. Hence, in this example, we should ask if the trees have been planted in Company A’s organizational boundary or in the country park, owned by Hong Kong government. If it’s the former, the answer is 46 tonnes of carbon removal in Scope 1.

41

42

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

2.4.3  Quantifying Scope 2 Emissions Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heat and gas that are produced outside of the reporting company’s boundaries. CFScope 2 = ∑ ( AD i × EFi )





ADi is the electricity or gas consumption data EFi is the relevant emission factor from that utility The emission factors for Scope 2 emissions are normally released by the utility companies, such as the power plants. Local governments will publish the emission factors, but most updated emission factors could be found from electricity and gas companies’ annual report and/or their sustainability reports. For example, Table 2.5 lists out the emission factors for the two power companies (i.e. China Light Power, CLP, and Hong Kong Electric, HEC) from the Hong Kong government released guidebook for carbon auditing (EMSD/EPD 2010), which was updated in 2010, and the most updated emission factors (i.e. from 2009 till 2017) are summarized in Table 2.6. It is the same to Towngas in Hong Kong, which is summarized in Table 2.7. One major job for carbon consultants and corporate sustainability practitioners, who need to conduct the carbon footprint measurement, is to collect and compile the emission factors, especially the reporting companies in those countries where there are no published utility emission factors or the data haven’t been updated very frequently. Table 2.5  Emission factors for Hong Kong’s power companies (in kg CO2e/kWh) (EMSD/EPD 2010) Power company CLP HEC

2002 0.48 0.96

2003 0.56 0.98

2004 0.53 0.98

2005 0.52 0.92

2006 0.53 0.91

2007 0.57 0.83

2008 0.54 0.84

Table 2.6  Emission factors for Hong Kong’s power companies (in kg CO2e/kWh) Power company CLPa HECb

2009 0.56 0.81a

2010 0.54 0.79a

2011 0.59 0.79

2012 0.58 0.79

2013 0.63 0.78

2014 0.64 0.79

2015 0.54 0.78

2016 0.54 0.79

2017 0.51 0.79

From CLP group’s sustainability reports From HEC’s sustainability reports

a

b

Table 2.7  Emission factors for gas in Hong Kong (in kgCO2e/unit purchased Towngasa) Year 2005 EF

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0.735 0.693 0.592 0.593 0.628 0.620 0.618 0.610 0.620 0.600 0.605 0.599 0.592

Emission factors for Towngas for 2005–2008 are from EMSD/EPD (2010), while those for 2009 till 2017 are from Towngas’ sustainability reports

a

2.4 Corporate Carbon Audit: Quantifying the Emissions

43

2.4.4  Quantifying Scope 3 Emissions (Optional) Indirect emissions are those emissions not within the reporting entity’s organizational boundaries, hence no need to be reported. But since Scope 2 emission is of paramount importance to the reporting organization, one has to report Scope 2 emission, while Scope 3 emissions are all the other indirect emissions, which is optional to be reported. In this section, I just give two examples to illustrate how to calculate Scope 3 emissions. Example #1: Indirect Emissions from Water Consumption and Sewage Discharge Given: Restaurant A in Central, Hong Kong, consumed 10,000  m3 tap water in 2016. Ask: Calculate the indirect emissions from this activity. Answer: This calculation takes into account the indirect GHG emissions due to electricity and energy used for processing fresh water and treating wastewater at water/sewage treatment plants. The water consumption data from water bills serves the activity data for both water use and sewage discharge. However, it should be noted that while we assume 100% of the fresh water consumed will enter the sewage system in common commercial and residential buildings, we assume 70% of the fresh water consumed will enter the sewage system for restaurants and catering services (EMSD/EPD 2010). CFwater = AD water × EFwater = 10,000 × 0.402∗ / 1,000 = 4.02 tonnes CO 2 e.





CFsewage = ADsewage × EFsewage = 10,000 × 70% × 0.190∗∗ / 1,000 = 1.33tonnesCO 2e. ∗



Emission factor from Hong Kong’s Water Service Department’s annual report. ∗∗ Emission factor from Hong Kong’s Drainage Service Department’s sustainability report.

44

2  Carbon Footprint Measurement

Example #2: Indirect Emissions from Air Travel Table 2.8 shows how to calculate indirect emissions from business trips. Based on UK’s standards (DEFRA 2018), emission from air travel depends on the type of the flight, different cabin classes and the distance of travelling. Table 2.8  Emission factors for business air trips (DEFRA 2018) Flight Domestic, to/from the UK Short-haul, to/from the UK

Long-haul, to/from the UK

International, to/from the non-UK

Class Average passenger Average passenger Economy class Business class Average passenger Economy class Premium economy class Business class First class Average passenger Economy class Premium economy class Business class First class

kg CO2e/ passenger/km 0.29832 0.16236 0.1597 0.23955 0.21256 0.16279 0.26046 0.47208 0.65115 0.18277 0.139965 0.22395 0.4059 0.55987

2.5  Tracking Emissions Tracking GHG emissions over time is the same as monitoring the sustainability performance of the reporting company. It enables the reporting company to measure its emissions against the targets to understand where it is and how it has performed, to report its GHG reductions and to manage the potential risks and opportunities. In this section, we will discuss how to choose a base year and whether the baseline should be recalculated and if yes, how.

2.5.1  Establishing Baseline A “base year” is a benchmark against which an entity’s emissions are compared over time. The reporting company’s base-year emission is called baseline. How to choose a base year and establish its baseline? • It can be the earliest reporting year the company submits a complete emission report – a report that fulfils the reporting standard that the company chooses.

2.5 Tracking Emissions

45

• It can also be a historical year when the company submits complete data or all subsequent years. • The base year could be a calendar year or a fiscal year. • Business growth should be taken into account when choosing the base year. For instance, most companies in Hong Kong would not choose 2003 as their base year, as the outbreak of the deadly infectious disease SARS in Hong Kong happened in 2013 followed by a sharp drop in GDP. This unexpected valley point of business growth would not provide a good benchmarking point for emissions, as we know that anthropogenic GHG emissions are highly dependent on the consumptions and activities.

2.5.2  Updating Baseline Why need to update baseline? • Companies often undergo significant structural changes such as acquisitions, divestment and mergers. • Some emission scopes can be changed over time, e.g. from Scope 1 to Scope 3, if the activity is outsourced. • Companies may also make different kinds of mistakes during GHG inventory preparation and carbon auditing. Setting a base year allows to scale structural changes to their entity back to a benchmarked emission profile. Adjustments to base-year emission – baseline – are generally made to reflect organizational changes such as mergers, acquisitions or divestments. How to update? The reporting company should develop a baseline recalculation policy and define “significant threshold”– a qualitative and/or quantitative criterion used to define any significant change to the data, boundaries, methods or other relevant factors. For instance, 5% threshold is used for the US Climate Registry (2008), while 10% for California Climate Action Registry (2009). The reporting company should update its baseline when the changes are beyond the defined significant threshold. The following examples illustrate the different cases on how to do it. Example #1: Acquisition and Mergers Company A’s GHG emission base year is 2010 and the baseline is 100 tonnes CO2e. In year 2011, Company A acquired Company B, with emission in 2010 of 3 tonnes CO2e. If we set the significant threshold as 5%, the acquisition of Company B was not significant (i.e. 3% 20 MW) Industrial gas projects (HFC-23 or N2O from adipic acid production) Methodologies Forestry-related unless based on sustainable REDD+ project

PAS 2060 Must monitor the subject’s emissions intensity to a baseline; must implement CFMP to reduce the subject’s emissions; emission reductions must be achieved and identified; mandatory targets would be regarded as the minimum reduction target, and outsourcing could not regarded as a form of reduction Adopted standards/ carbon credits: Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism/CERs Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation/ ERUs EU Allowances Gold Standard for the Global Goals/ VER Verified Carbon Standard/VCUs UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Change Quality Assurance Scheme for Carbon Offsets

The CarbonNeutral Protocol Must commit to an overall net zero emission target and set an internal reduction target to ensure actual emissions decrease over time; the target may be expressed as an absolute GHG emission reduction or as a decrease in GHG intensity. No specific requirement on reduction target

Approved standards/carbon credits: American Carbon Registry/ERTs Australian Emissions Reduction Fund/ ACCU Climate Action Reserve/CRTs Gold Standard for the Global Goals/ VER Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism/CERs Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation/ ERUs Verified Carbon Standard/VCUs (continued)

5.1 Carbon Neutrality

129

Table 5.2 (continued) Steps Australia NCOS Declaration Publicly available reports should Detail progress against the emission management plan, the quantity and type of offsets purchased and the registry where they were retired. Where Australian offsets are used, full information must be publicly available and credits tracked on a public registry. Proponent must complete an agreement to use the National Carbon Offset Standard logo

Carbon Footprint Standard Verification by Carbon Footprint Ltd. once certified, carbon footprint standard logo can be used in company’s marketing materials under licence from Carbon Footprint Ltd. Licences are usually provided for a period of 12 months

PAS 2060 Two forms of declaration: Commitment to carbon neutrality and achievement of carbon neutrality conformity assessment can be undertaken by an independent third-party certification, other party validation or self-validation

The CarbonNeutral Protocol Self-validation not permitted; requirement and guidance on the use of the CarbonNeutral certification logo

Fig. 5.1  Steps to demonstrate carbon neutral

When determining the subject for demonstrating carbon neutrality, PAS 2060 also requires the applicant to establish all characteristics (purposes, objectives or functionality) inherent to that subject.

130

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Quantify the Carbon Footprint The following international standards could be used to quantify carbon footprint of the subject: • Organization/Entity: ISO 14064-1; GHG Protocol. • Product/Service/Activity: PAS 2050; ISO 14067. • Project: ISO 14064-2. According to PAS2060, the operational boundaries are defined as follows: • • • • •

• • • • •

All greenhouse gases shall be included and converted into CO2e. 100% Scope 1 (direct) emissions included. 100% Scope 2 emissions included. Where estimates of GHG emissions are used in the quantification of the subject carbon footprint (particularly when associated with scope 3 emissions), these shall be determined in a manner that precludes underestimation. Any Scope 1, 2 or 3 emission estimated to be more than 1% of the total carbon footprint shall be taken into consideration unless evidence can be provided to demonstrate that such quantification would not be technically feasible or cost-effective. Emission sources estimated to constitute less than 1% may be excluded on that basis alone. All decisions to exclude shall be subject to the following conditions: The quantified carbon footprint shall cover at least 95% of the emissions from the subject. Where a single source contributes more than 50% of the total emissions, the 95% threshold applies to the remaining sources of emissions. Any exclusion and the reason for that exclusion shall be documented. When the subject is a product or service, all Scope 3 emissions should be included as the full life cycle from cradle to grave should be taken into consideration. The following principles should be followed during the quantification of CF:

• The carbon footprint shall be based on primary activity data unless the entity can demonstrate that it is not practicable to do so and an authoritative source of secondary data relevant to the subject is available. • Use emission factors from national (Government) publications. Where such factors are not available, international or industry guidelines shall be used. In all cases the sources of such data shall be identified. • Conversion of non-CO2 greenhouse gases to CO2e shall be based upon the 100-­ year global warming potential figures published by the IPCC or national (Government) publication. • All carbon footprints shall be expressed as an absolute amount in tCO2e. For products and services, these shall relate to a specified unit of product or instance of service (e.g. tCO2e per kg of product). Develop the Carbon Footprint Management Plan According to PAS 2060, the company shall develop and document a carbon footprint management plan (CFMP) which shall include:

5.1 Carbon Neutrality

131

1 . A statement of commitment to carbon neutrality for the defined subject. 2. A timescale for achieving carbon neutrality of the defined subject. 3. Targets for GHG reduction for the defined subject appropriate to the timescale for achieving carbon neutrality. 4. The planned means of achieving and maintaining GHG emissions reductions including assumptions made and any justification of the techniques and measures to be employed to reduce GHG emissions. 5. The offset strategy to be adopted including an estimate of the quantity of GHG emissions to be offset, the nature of the offsets and the likely number and type of credits. CFMP is the deliverable from the carbon management strategic planning stage, as discussed in Chap. 4. CFMP shall be updated every year if the company wants to maintain its carbon neutrality status. Reduce Carbon Footprint The company shall implement the CFMP and monitor the progress against the plan over the time. Where the subject is a non-recurring event, the Plan shall identify ways of reducing GHG emissions to the maximum extent before the event takes place and include “post event review” to determine whether or not the expected minimization in emissions has been achieved. Quantified GHG emissions reductions shall be expressed in absolute terms and shall relate to the application period selected and/or shall be expressed in emission intensity terms (e.g. per specified unit of product or instance of service). It should be noted that the company shall reduce its emission as much as possible before seeking carbon offsetting. Hence according to PAS 2060, mandatory targets would be regarded as the minimum reduction target, and outsourcing could not regarded as a form of reduction, as all sources of emissions should be taken into consideration. Re-quantify the Carbon Footprint After reduction, carbon footprint should be quantified again at the end of each application period (i.e. reporting year). This is called residual carbon footprint, which is also the amount of GHG emissions that should be offset to achieve carbon neutral. The quantification methods are the same to what has been discussed above. Offsetting Company shall identify and document the standard and methodology used to achieve its carbon offset. The company shall prepare documentation substantiating the carbon offset including: (a) Which GHG emissions have been offset. (b) The actual amount of carbon offset. (c) The type of offset and projects involved. (d) Confirmation of the carbon offset scheme. (e) The number and type of carbon offset credits used and the time period over which the credits have been generated.

132

5  Total Carbon Management Model

(f) Information regarding the retirement/cancellation of carbon offset credits to prevent their use by others including a link to the registry where the offset has been retired. Carbon offsets shall be verified by an independent third-party verifier. Other requirements include: • Credits from carbon offset projects shall only be issued after the emission reduction associated with the offset project has taken place. • Credits from carbon offset projects shall be retired within 12 months from the date of the declaration of achievement. • Credits from carbon offset projects shall be supported by publically available project documentation on a registry which shall provide information about the offset project, quantification methodology and validation and verification procedures. • Credits from carbon offset projects shall be stored and retired in an independent and credible registry. Different offsetting standards and carbon credits can be adopted or approved by different carbon neutral standards, as summarized in Table 5.2. Declaration PAS 2060 does not make provision for a declaration of the achievement of carbon neutrality solely through offsetting other than the first application period. There are two forms of declaration: • The declaration of commitment to carbon neutrality requires the entity to establish the carbon footprint and to document a carbon footprint management plan. • The declaration of achievement of carbon neutrality requires the entity to have achieved reduction and to have offset remaining GHG emissions. According to PAS 2060, validation can be undertaken by an independent third party, other party or through self-validation.

5.1.3  Certification of Carbon Neutral In last section, overall process, steps and requirements based on different carbon neutral standards have been discussed. But how can a company have their company or products/service certified for carbon neutral? Different standards provide the different carbon neutral labels which are certified with their own standards, as shown in Fig. 5.2. For example, CarbonNeutral certifications can only be awarded by a CarbonNeutral certifier, following a certification process by which a client receives recognition that it has met the provisions of The CarbonNeutral Protocol for a specific subject.

5.1 Carbon Neutrality

133

PAS 2060 does not provide its own label, but many service providers adopt PAS 2060 standard to issue their own carbon neutral certification services with their own carbon neutral labels. A few examples can be seen from Fig. 5.3. Based on PAS 2060:2014, there are three different ways to achieve carbon neutral certification, and the specified types of conformity assessment include: –– Self-validation. –– Other party validation. –– Independent third-party certification. In the following section, examples of each above type will be discussed to give the readers an overview of the certification requirements and process. Self-Certification Marks and Spencer Group Plc. (Marks and Spencer 2014) issued the Qualifying Explanatory Statement (QES) to demonstrate Marks and Spencer Group Plc. (M&S) had achieved carbon neutrality from 1 January 2012 to 31 March 2014 and was committed to achieving carbon neutrality from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 under the guidelines of PAS 2060:2014. M&S conducted the self-certification in-house, and QES document did not use the QES checklist from PAS 2060:2014, but listing out its application periods, two declarations, carbon footprint assessment, carbon footprint management plan (CFMP), carbon offset strategy and detailed discussion on Scope 3 emissions, its exclusions and justifications. Other Party Validation Planet Labs manufactures and launches microsatellites, which provide regularly updated remote monitoring imagery around the world. As part of its commitment to environmental responsibility and climate protection, Planet Labs contracted SCS Global Services (SCS 2017) to certify its operations as carbon neutral in 2016 against the widely recognized PAS 2060 standard. SCS issued QES for Planet Labs to declare its achievement of carbon neutrality at 31 December 2016 for the period commencing 1 January 2016 to 31 December in accordance with PAS 2060. An example of the checklist for QES supporting declaration of achievement to carbon neutrality is shown in Table 5.3.

Fig. 5.2  Carbon neutral labels certified with own standards; from left to right, Australia NCOS, Carbon Footprint Standard and The CarbonNeutral Protocol as described in Table 5.2

134

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Fig. 5.3  Other examples of carbon neutral labels certified by PAS 2060 Standards

Third-Party Assurance BP Target Neutral issued QES for Castrol Ltd. to demonstrate that it has achieved carbon neutrality for Castrol PCO engine oils and Castrol Engine Shampoo sold in Japan from 1 January 2018 to 31 January 2018 and was committed to maintain carbon neutrality from 1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019 (BP TN 2018). This QES is in accordance with PAS 2060 and was independently certified by a third-­ party Ernst & Young. A more comprehensive QES checklist was also used for supporting declaration of commitment to carbon neutrality. For more details, readers could refer to PAS2060:2014 (BSI 2014).

5.2  Case Studies 5.2.1  Events Many events have been claimed carbon neutral. Famous ones include 2008 Montreal Jazz Festival, US former president Obama’s Inauguration in 2009, 2009 and 2010 Academic Awards, FIFA World Cup 2010 and 2014, Singapore’s first carbon neutral event – the Responsible Business Forum on Sustainable Development (RBF) 2013, and Rio 2016 Olympic Games, etc. To conduct a carbon neutral event is a bit different from the standard process of measure-reduce-offset, as most events are non-­ occurring. The steps include: • • • •

Pre-event assessment of carbon emissions. Planning and implementation of reduction measures. Post-event measurement of actual carbon emissions. Offsetting of residual emissions.

While mega sports events bring significant direct and indirect social and economic benefits to the host country, they also generate massive environmental impacts. Along the years, different mega events have tried to achieve carbon neutrality to show the event organizers’ commitment in sustainability and

5.2 Case Studies

135

Table 5.3  Example of QES checklist requirements ⌷ Define standard and methodology use to determine its GHG emissions reduction. ⌷ Confirm that the methodology used was applied in accordance with its provisions and the principles set out in PAS 2060 were met. ⌷ Provide justification for the selection of the methodologies chosen to quantify reductions in the carbon footprint, including all assumptions and calculations made and any assessments of uncertainty. ⌷ Describe the means by which reductions have been achieved and any applicable assumptions or justifications. ⌷ Ensure that there has been no change to the definition of the subject. ⌷ Describe the actual reductions achieved in absolute and intensity terms and as a percentage of the original carbon footprint . ⌷ State the baseline/qualification date. ⌷ Record the percentage economic growth rate for the given application period used as a threshold for recognizing reductions in intensity terms. ⌷ Provide an explanation for circumstances where a GHG reduction in intensity terms is accompanied by an increase in absolute terms for the determined subject. ⌷ Select and document the standard and methodology used to achieve carbon offset. Confirm that: ⌷ (a) Offsets generated or allowance credits surrendered represent genuine, additional GHG emission reductions elsewhere, ⌷ (b) Projects involved in delivering offsets meet the criteria of additionality, permanence, leakage and double counting, ⌷ (c) Carbon offsets are verified by an independent third party verifier, ⌷ (d) Credits from carbon offset projects are only issued after the emission reduction has taken place, ⌷ (e) Credits from carbon offset projects are retired within 12 months from the date of the declaration of achievement, ⌷ (f) Provision for event-related option of 36 months to be added here, ⌷ (g) Credits from carbon offset projects are supported by publically available project documentation on a registry which shall provide information about the offset project, quantification methodology and validation and verification procedures, ⌷ (h) Credits from carbon offset projects are stored and retired in an independent and credible registry. Document the quantity of GHG emissions credits and the type and nature of credits actually purchased including the number and type of credits used and the time period over which credits were generated including: ⌷ (a) Which GHG emissions have been offset, ⌷ (b) the actual amount of carbon offset, ⌷ (c) the type of credits and projects involved, ⌷ (d) the number and type of carbon credits used and the time period over which the credits have been generated, ⌷ (e) for events, a rationale to support any retirement of credits in excess of 12 months including details of any legacy emission savings taken into account, ⌷ (f) Information regarding the retirement/cancellation of carbon credits to prevent their use by others including a link to the registry or equivalent publicly available record, where the credit has been retired, (continued)

136

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Table 5.3 (continued) ⌷ Specify the type of conformity assessment: (a) independent third-party certification; (b) other party validation; (c) self-validation. ⌷ Include statements of validation where declarations of achievement of carbon neutrality are validated by a third-party certifier or second-party organizations. ⌷ Date the QES and have it signed by the senior representative of the entity concerned. ⌷ Make QES publicly available and provide a reference to any freely accessible information upon which substantiation depends (e.g. via websites).

environmental stewardship. A comparison of four past events is summarized in Table 5.4. Firstly, all these mega events conducted a pre-event assessment of carbon emissions. London Olympics defined it as “a reference footprint”, which is a baseline assessment of what the games footprint would have been before efforts to reduce it (London 2012 2010). Performance is then assessed against this reference footprint using projected data which is adjusted to incorporate carbon reduction achievements and commitments. As the standardized method for measuring and reporting CF for mega events was not available, London 2012 developed a well-documented specific methodology for Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012, which was also adopted in Rio 2016. For instance, for system boundaries, London 2012 combined both equity share and control approaches (approaches to define organizational boundaries for carbon measurement have been discussed in Chap. 2), to capture the emission both under its control and from those closely linked to its financial spend. The hybrid approach classifies operations as either “owned”, “shared” or “associated” (OSA) according to the extent of the financial contribution from London 2012 Organising Committee (LOCOG) and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). For London 2012, owned emissions from the ODA and LOCOG made up two-thirds of the overall, and the majority of owned emissions relate to the construction of venues and the Games-­ time operations. 2014 FIFA World Cup carbon footprint used operational control approach to define the organizational boundaries. It included preparation events, FIFA Confederations Cup (FCC) staging events and FIFA World Cup (FWC) staging events. It did not include the construction of the 12 stadiums used in the tournament – it only included the temporary constructions. FIFA 2018 used the same approach as FIFA 2014, but compared to the organizational boundaries set in 2014, the category “Team Workshop” has been added to the preparation period, and the International FIFA Fan Fests were excluded from the FWC period, since no International FIFA Fan Fests were planned to take place in 2018. For both FIFAs, transport was identified as the major contributor to total emissions: around 74% from international travel to Russia and travel between host cities for FIFA 2018 and 84% from transport at FIFA 2014.

5.2 Case Studies

137

Table 5.4  Comparison of carbon management and carbon neutrality for different mega sports events London 2012 FIFA 2014 2,723,756 tCO2e 3.4MtCO2e System boundaries  Venues (50%).  Transportation and estimated  Spectators (83.7%). CF (20%).  Accommodation  Transport (5.7%). infrastructure  Venue (9.6%). (17%).  Cross-phase Operations (13%) activities (0.9%)

Reduction efforts

No strategy in More than reduction. Mainly 0.4MtCO2e focused on offsetting savings identified: Site energy strategy; venues re-design; materials specification; materials substitution; materials reuse/ recycling; freighting by rail/ water; fleet selection; technology selection; green procurement code

Rio 2016 4.5MtCO2e  Operations (10%).  Venue construction (16%).  Infrastructure construction (19%).  Spectator (55%).

Avoid emissions through careful planning and efficient processes. Reducing embodied carbon in materials through smart design and sustainable purchasing. Substituting fossil fuels for renewable and alternative fuels.

FIFA 2018 2,167,118 tCO2e  Scope 1 (stationary combustion 0.4%).  Scope 2 (electricity 1%).  Scope 3 (temporary facilities 4.2%, F & B 4.9%, accommodation 11.7%, travel 73.8%). 12 stadiums got BREEAM certified

(continued)

138

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Table 5.4 (continued) Carbon offsetting

London 2012 London 2012 dropped carbon offsetting

Post-event Actual emission measurement reported as 3.3MtCO2e

FIFA 2014 331,000 tCO2e (including emissions from ticketholders who signed up to the climate protection campaign). Credits from four projects in Brazil

Nil

Rio 2016 Engaged Dow as a climate partner to implement projects in Brazil and the rest of Latin America to achieve more than 2.2MtCO2e during a 10 years’ period. The Rio de Janeiro state government is responsible for the offset of 1.6 million CO2e-­related construction and infrastructure. Nil

FIFA 2018 Launched a campaign to get ticket holders to offset the carbon emissions resulting from their attendance of the tournament

Nil

It should be noted that International Olympic Committee (IOC) released Carbon Footprint Methodology for Olympic Games in December 2018, which standardizes the method in CF measurement, management and reporting for mega sports event (ICO 2018). Secondly, to reduce the impact, both Olympic Games London 2012 and Rio 2016 had developed a comprehensive sustainability plan to reduce and manage its carbon footprint. FIFA events did not have a solid reduction plan, except for the 12 stadiums that were certified green for FIFA 2018. Thirdly, to offset the impact, London 2012 dropped the formal offsetting strategy as a carbon reduction solution. Therefore, London 2012 claimed to be the “greenest” event, but is not carbon neutral. Rio 2016 had a very complex compensation plan that it engaged Dow as a climate partner to develop and implement different carbon offsetting projects in Brazil and other Latin American countries. It also engaged the local government to offset part of the carbon emissions. Although FIFA claimed carbon offsetting as the main reduction strategy and declared carbon neutrality for its events, neither FIFA 2014 nor FIFA 2018 could be certified as carbon neutral, in accordance with PAS 2060 or other standards. For example, FIFA 2018 launched its climate action campaign, encouraging successful ticket applicants to offset the carbon emissions resulting from their travel to the tournament for free. For each ticket holder signing up, FIFA offset 2.9 tCO2e, which was the average emission per ticket holder travelling from abroad. However, the scheme was limited to only 100,000 tCO2e – that is, it would only account for the

5.2 Case Studies

139

emissions of 34,500 fans  – out of three million viewers. The organization also pledged to offset all emissions considered “unavoidable” and operationally controlled, which is an amount of 243,000 tCO2e, or only 11.2% of total emissions. Finally, real impact assessment after the event. According to IOC’s new methodology (ICO 2018), the results of the actual carbon footprint should be published as part of the post-Games Sustainability Report, normally within 6 months following the end of the Paralympic Games. According to various post-event assessments, the London 2012 Games were regarded to be the greenest games ever, succeeding in reducing the carbon footprint of the event and cutting energy consumption by 20%. Although it fell short in other aspects, such as not meeting renewable energy targets, it was established that the carbon dioxide released during the games was 28% less than the projected amount. Even though the carbon footprint from transport was less than the projected levels, the carbon emission from spectators was estimated to be 913,000 Mt., which exceeded the expected emissions by approximately 36% (Environmental Leader 2012), caused by the higher number of spectators, athletes and the Olympics and Paralympics workforces. Nevertheless, the overall amount of emissions was at 3.3 million tCO2e, which was lower than the estimate of 3.4 million tCO2e (London 2012 2010). The author could not find the post-event assessment for the actual carbon footprint for the other three events discussed here. When South Pole was asked if they would do an accounting of actual 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia carbon emissions to see how real emissions compare to the estimated ones, South Pole, who delivered the CF estimation for FIFA 2018, hoped they could be engaged by FIFA and the organizers of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where they could get the chance to report on the actual GHG emissions, and not just estimate them (see blog.southpole.com). In summary, for small events to be claimed as carbon neutral, it is recommended to follow PAS 2060 and/or other international standards and also to follow the steps of pre-event assessment of CF, on-site implementation of reduction measures, post-­ event assessment of actual CF and offsetting the CF.  For the mega events, it is recommended to stick to PAS 2060 and IOC’s new guidelines on Carbon Footprint Methodology for Olympic Games.

5.2.2  Hotels The Arthur Hotels group in Copenhagen was the first carbon neutral hotel group in the world (as confirmed by International Hotel & Restaurant Association, IHRA). Arthur Hotels group has developed and followed their 5-point climate action plan since 2008: 1. CO2 neutralization now and in the future. 2 . Create energy savings.

140

5  Total Carbon Management Model

3. Involve guests. 4. Establish a CO2 neutral hotel network. 5. Collaborate with climate networks/alliances including climate-friendly suppliers. The most successful reduction measure by Arthur Hotels group was the reduction of linen consumption by 22%, which resulted in less laundry detergent used and reduced carbon emission from reduced energy consumption of the washing machines and reduced transport of linen to and from the hotel. Hotel Speicher am Ziegelsee became the first carbon neutral hotel in Mecklenburg-­ Western Pomerania in 2010 and has been climate-positive since 2017. Guests could stay carbon neutral by the hotel’s effort on 100% green electricity and 100% bio-­ district heating, promoting e-mobility and heat recovery in the entire irrigation technology. The measures helped to save 72.1% carbon emission per guest per night and to consume 59.1% less energy in 2017 than hotels in the same star category during the same period. Avoiding long-distance delivery, the hotel sources predominantly regional products. Residual emissions are compensated by a reforestation project in Panama as part of the initiative “Klima-Hotels Deutschland” (https://www.greenpearls.com/newsroom/climate-neutral-hotels/). The Bucuti & Tara Beach Resort in Aruba has become the first in the Caribbean to achieve total carbon neutrality in 2018. It followed the CarbonNeutral Protocol and was certified as CarbonNeutral. It implemented much broader reduction measures including daily transportation for staff and the importation of food and goods, as well as any carbon spent for conferences and business travel. The resort is home to the largest solar panel installation the government of Aruba will allow, and the small amounts of offsets they need to purchase come from a local wind farm. They also make efforts in waste reduction, especially engaging the guests in diverting single-use plastic bottled and food waste from landfilling. In Hong Kong, iclub Wanchai Hotel (formerly named “Regal iclub Hotel”) is a hotel brand under Regal Hotels International. During my time at Carbon Care Asia, we have assisted the iclub Wanchai Hotel to become Hong Kong’s first carbon neutral hotel in 2010. We established a comprehensive carbon management system through “measuring, reducing and offsetting” since the hotel’s opening, developed carbon reduction and offsetting strategies and provided communications support to stakeholder messages on “carbon neutrality”. For the hotel sector, in the past, hotels often did not go beyond their own operations of the hotels when talking about carbon neutrality. But a trend has been seen recently that hotels are looking into the carbon emissions from Scope 3, especially those related to goods and services purchased by hotels, waste management and transportation of the guests, staff and purchased goods, all of which are required by PAS 2060. Hotels are also providing a good platform to engage their guests and raise their awareness on climate and other environmental impacts. The hotel’s carbon footprint and the footprint per guest and stay should be kept as low as possible through initiatives and latest technology. The detailed case study on hotel carbon management will be discussed in Chap. 6.

5.2 Case Studies

141

5.2.3  Corporate Business for Social Responsibility listed out the carbon neutral companies and projects in its report in 2007 (BSR 2007). Table 5.5 summarizes a few selected companies. I will take HSBC as an example in this section. In 2004 HSBC made public its intention to go carbon neutral by January 2006 and achieved this objective, becoming the world’s first carbon neutral bank in October 2005, 3  months ahead of schedule. HSBC’s Carbon Management Plan comprised four steps to achieve carbon neutrality (HSBC 2008): • • • •

Measuring carbon footprint. Reducing emissions from energy consumption and business travel. Buying renewable energy where possible. Offsetting any remaining carbon emissions.

In 2006, measured CF for HSBC was 813,000 tCO2e, among which 69% came from its purchased electricity, 8% from fuel used for its operations and 23% from business travels. In 2005, HSBC set 3-year targets to reduce its energy consumption by 7% and carbon emissions by 5%. A number of initiatives have been implemented Table 5.5  List of some carbon neutral companies Target Year 2000 2005 2006

2007

2008 2010

2012 2020

Company Shaklee HSBC Barclays UK British sky broadcasting World Bank Avis Europe BSI Simmons & Simmons Silverjet Bradford and Bingley Green Mountain power Salesforce.com Yahoo! Inc. KPMG (Australia) News Corp ST microelectronics Timberland Marks & Spencer Nike Interface, Inc.

Revenues ($ millions) 34

Status Achieved

115,361 47,942 7,534

Industry Personal & home care Banking/finance Banking Media

4,783 1,512 467 449 N/A 3,853 241 497 6,426 462 25,327 9,854 1,567 13,561 14,955 1,076

International NGO Auto rental Standards Legal Airlines Financial services Electricity generation Professional services IT Accounting services Media Semiconductors Apparel/footwear Retail Apparel/footwear Commercial interiors

Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment Commitment

Achieved Achieved Achieved

142

5  Total Carbon Management Model

to achieve these reduction targets. It included building a prototype zero carbon branch in New York, installing solar energies for buildings in the UK and France, installing videoconferencing technology in a number of offices to reduce the need for employee business travel and rolling out a few energy efficiency initiatives. With step 3, HSBC buys green energy in many regions around the world. For instance, in 2006, HSBC bought clean energy equivalent to a third of its electricity consumption in the USA through the purchase of renewable energy credits. And lastly, HSBC bought carbon dioxide offsets from credible renewable energy projects which have been assessed and verified independently. In July 2007, HSBC committed to spend US$90 million over the next 5 years to continue to reduce its carbon footprint. This Global Environmental Efficiency Programme would help the Group achieve its environmental reduction targets by trialling environmental innovation and sharing best practice through the installation of renewable energy technologies and other initiatives (HSBC 2008). Furthermore in 2017 HSBC launched the HSBC Climate Partnership programme to commit US$100 million to work with The Climate Group, Earthwatch, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature to combat climate change by inspiring individuals, business and governments worldwide. In this partnership programme, HSBC employees were aimed to be engaged through the Climate Champion programme under which trainings on sustainability and climate change were provided to equip them to initiate changes in their own business areas (Hopwood et al. 2010). However, in 2011, HSBC announced it would no longer be carbon neutral, because the carbon market didn’t work out as expected when it made the commitment in 2005 (Bowen 2014). In 2013, in a media briefing published by World Development Movement, it blamed that HSBC’s investment banking arm was the UK’s biggest underwriter of fossil fuel bonds and shares, and between 2010 and 2012, HSBC helped fossil fuel companies raise just under £75 billion (World Development Movement 2013). It also blamed that HSBC’s carbon neutrality declaration did not consider any carbon emissions from bankrolling fossil fuel firms to form part of its carbon footprint. HSBC’s previous supposed carbon neutrality only referred to its annual spend of £ten million a year on carbon offset schemes and other projects, while £ten million is less than 0.0007% of HSBC’s overall assets billion (World Development Movement 2013). On 6 November 2017, HSBC had a news release that it pledged to provide $100 billion in sustainable financing and investment by 2025, as part of its new commitments to tackle climate change and support sustainable growth in the communities it serves. HSBC pledged to intensify its support for clean energy and lower-carbon technologies, as well as projects that support the implementation of the United Nation’s SDGs, which included sourcing 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, with an interim target of 90 per cent by 2025 and discontinuing financing of new coal-fired power plants in developed markets and of thermal coal mines worldwide.

5.2 Case Studies

143

5.2.4  Products O’right Carbon Neutral Shampoo Based in Taiwan, O’right is the maker of the world’s first carbon neutral shampoo. Since 2009, O’right has asked SGS Taiwan to conduct the product CF of three signature products – 400 ml Green Tea Shampoo, 1000 ml Green Tea Shampoo and Organic White Tea Hair Treatment Set, following PAS 2050:2008. In 2010, O’right participated in Taiwan’s newly launched Carbon Footprint Label system and got the world’s first carbon neutral shampoo certified by BSI. Based on O’right’s carbon neutral declaration report (O’right 2011), the CF of a bottle of 400 ml Green Tea Shampoo was around 790 gCO2e from its life cycle, among which raw material extraction contributed 19%, manufacturing 3%, logistic and retail 2%, consumer 50% and waste disposal 26%. CF was reduced by 2.08% due to the change of the raw materials and new design of the bottle and the residual of 8 tCO2e for its 10,000 bottles of shampoo produced from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011 were offset by purchased VCUs. O’right moved forward beyond 2011. In 2016, it developed the groundbreaking 100% renewable plastic shampoo bottle made from recycled food and cosmetic plastic containers. In 2017, all 1000 ml conditioner bottles were upgraded to 100% renewable plastic to achieve a carbon reduction of 75%. In 2018, O’right brought sustainability to the next level by successfully joining RE100 along with Facebook and Google and vowed to become the first company in Taiwan to make a commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2025. The same year, O’right was validated by SGS for carbon neutrality as a corporate organization and for nine of their products and introduced the world’s first renewable plastic pump. Interface Carbon Neutral Floor Interface, a US flooring giant, has continuously been recognized as the corporate sustainability leader in GlobeScan and SustainAbility’s annual Sustainability Leaders Survey since 1997. Interface is well-known for its commitment on its “Mission Zero” pledges – zero waste, greenhouse gas emissions and net water use – by 2020, and in 2016 it launched a new Climate Take Back mission, which sets a series of innovation goals to inspire both Interface and other businesses to further reduce their environmental footprint and even help reverse climate change. In 2018, every flooring product offered by Interface – whether carpet, LVT or rubber – is 100% carbon neutral. Carbon emission from every stage of its products’ life cycle has been analysed, and Interface reduced emissions of manufacturing by 96% and reduced the carbon footprint of its products by over 60%, which remains the lowest in the industry. Interface has purchased more than 3.9 million tonnes of carbon credits since 2002 to offset its emission and to support various RE and community projects, as listed below: • Madagascar, Thailand and China  – new renewable energy projects involving solar, hydro- and wind power to reduce the amount of carbon emissions entering the atmosphere.

144

5  Total Carbon Management Model

• Guatemala and Kenya – community fuel switching and water purification projects tackling carbon emissions alongside human health and community empowerment. • USA, Cambodia and Zimbabwe – reforestation projects to keep carbon stored and sequestered in the soil and plants. FIJI Water In 2007, FIJI Water announced a plan to be carbon negative – that is, to trap more GHGs than it released in the process of making, shipping and selling its product, bottled FIJI Water (Deutsch 2007). The overall goal was to reduce emissions from its own operations and offset more emissions than its residual emission so that FIJI bottled water was a 20% carbon-negative product. The company planned to achieve this through a number of methods, including the installation of a windmill on its plant in Fiji, the use of more ships and fewer trucks to transport its products, reducing the amount of plastic and paper used in packaging and increasing the amount of alternative fuels used in its trucks and at its plant. In addition to these internal changes, the company would also purchase carbon offsets to reduce emissions and announced a partnership with Conservation International to permanently protect the 50,000-acre Sovi Basin, the largest lowland rainforest remaining in Fiji (GreenBiz 2007). FIJI Water was the first private company and the first bottled water company to disclose its CF on the Carbon Disclosure Project (now named CDP) (Gino et al. 2013). ICF International, a global leader in analysing emissions inventories and providing advice on climate strategy, independently reviewed and verified FIJI Water’s carbon footprint annually. According to an interview with FJI Sustainability Manager Barbara Chung by Inhabitat, purchasing 1-litre bottle of FIJI Water resulted in removal of about 115 g CO2e, and FIJI Water in 2008 helped remove more than 20,000 tCO2e from the atmosphere, which is equivalent to planting over 500,000 trees (Inhabitat 2008). In 2011, a Southern California woman sued the FIJI Water Company in a class action complaint that alleged the company’s carbon-negative claim was deceptive and misleading. The law firm Newport Trial Group filed the suit on December 20 in the US District Court in California. It stated that FIJI Water used forward offset credits, which relied on future carbon reduction that may or may not take place, and clients paid more due to its carbon-negative claim. Forward crediting occurs when one purchases the carbon credits that will be generated in the future. It has been mentioned in Section 3.4.2 when discussing the controversial issues of afforestation projects. For instance, under Gold Standard (refer to Table 3.4), tree planting projects are excluded. So it really depends on which offset standards and which types of the projects the company will adopt and how the company measures and makes the marketing claim of its products’ carbon neutrality status.

5.2 Case Studies

145

5.2.5  City Masdar City is a sustainable city project hosted by Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, it announced to be the world’s first zero carbon zero waste city. The planned development was a dense, car-free city to be constructed in an energy-efficient two-stage phase. A 10 MW photovoltaic solar power plant, the largest in the Middle East, would be constructed to power the city (Teagarden 2017). However, by 2016, only about 5% of Masdar’s original plan 6 km2 footprint with 50,000 inhabitants have been finished. Project planners have extended the completion date from 2016 to 2030 but gave up on the zero carbon zero waste goal, as they thought it would not be economically and technologically viable (Teagarden 2017). A few other projects have also been piloted or targeted itself for carbon neutral. Readers could have a read of unsuccessful projects such as Dongtan (C40 2011; McGirk 2015) and successful trial of energy-positive 4000-inhabitant Danish island of Samsø, where, during the past decade, more energy has been produced from wind and biomass than it consumed (Lewis 2017). How about commitment by cities after Paris climate conference, especially for big cities or even mega cities? The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNCA) is a collaboration of leading global cities working to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80–100% by 2050 or sooner – the most aggressive GHG reduction targets undertaken anywhere by any city. CNCA develops approaches, analysis, and tools to support carbon neutrality planning and implementation and standardizes measurement and verification methodologies in order to track progress. It developed Framework for Long-Term Deep Carbon Reduction Planning and its Game Changer Project to support city policies and initiatives that have the highest potential for rapid, deep GHG emissions reductions in urban transportation, energy use, and waste systems. The project also shares best practices for achieving “transformative” deep carbon reduction strategies. Based on the information on the CNCA’s website, the author summarizes the carbon neutral targets and programmes of some CNCA member cities, as shown in Table  5.6. More information could be found from CNCA’s website: https:// carbonneutralcities.org/. The author summarizes the leader cities and their carbon targets as follows: Past leaders: –– The city of Melbourne became a certified carbon neutral organization for the first time in 2011–2012. –– The City of Sydney’s operations became carbon neutral in 2007, with the City being the first government in Australia certified as such in 2011. Current leaders who set the carbon neutral targets: –– –– –– ––

Melbourne (2020). Adelaide (2025). Copenhagen (2025) – aims to be the first carbon neutral capital by 2025. Stockholm (2040).

146

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Cities who set carbon neutral target by 2050: –– Berlin, San Francisco, Seattle, Sydney and Washington DC. Cities who set emission reduction target of 80% by 2050: –– –– –– ––

1990 as baseline: Portland and Toronto 2005 as baseline: Boulder, New York, Rio De Janeiro and Yokohama 2006 as baseline: Minneapolis 2007 as baseline: Vancouver Renewable Energy Commitments:

–– –– –– ––

Oslo already achieved 100% RE. 100% RE by 2025: Copenhagen. 100% RE by 2030: Boulder. 100% RE by 2050: Portland and Vancouver.

5.3  Building Climate Resilience In Chap. 1, when we discussed climate change consequences, the climate risks and impacts and the concepts of mitigation and adaptation have also been introduced (see Sect. 1.4). But the concept of carbon management discussed so far is mainly based on the mitigation, that is, to understand where and how emission come from (i.e. carbon measurement) and to minimize it (i.e. carbon reduction and offsetting). IPCC in its AR5 projected the different climate changes; an adopted figure is shown in Fig. 5.4 (IPCC 2014a). The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) describe four different pathways of GHG concentrations for the twenty-first century: –– RCP2.6: a stringent mitigation scenario. –– RCP4.5 and RCP6.0: two intermediate scenarios. –– RCP8.5: a very high emissions scenario. Scenarios without additional efforts to constrain emissions (“baseline scenarios”) lead to pathways ranging between RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. RCP2.6 represents a scenario to keep global warming likely below 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures. Now the question is how business can act to the projected climate risks? IPCC defines resilience as “the ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions” (IPCC 2012). In a BSR’s 2018 report, a climate resilient business is therefore defined “be able to

5.3 Building Climate Resilience

147

Table 5.6  Selected CNCA member cities’ carbon neutral targets and programmes City Adelaide

Target Policies and strategies Carbon Neutral Strategy Carbon neutral for community by 2025 2015–2025 and for its operations by 2020

Programmes Carbon Neutral Adelaide Action Plan 2016–2021 outlines a way forward for mobilizing efforts to achieve carbon neutrality Ending coal-based generation: Berlin Energy Berlin Climate neutral by Lignite-based power has been Turnaround Act as 2050; reduce its emissions by 85% by amended in 2017; Berlin phased out in 2017, and black coal-based power will be by 2050 vs.1990 with a Energy and Climate 2030; move away from reduction of at least Protection Programme combustion engine technology, 40% by 2020 and at 2030, with approval by and reduce emissions from the Berlin Senate and least 60% by 2030 motorized private transport; Parliament public administration will work carbon neutral by 2030 Building performance Climate commitment Boulder Reduce 80% of ordinance for efficiency in document, the adopted community-wide commercial and industrial emissions from 2005 goals also include buildings, updating energy progress indicators and by 2050; reduce codes, SmartRegs rental emissions from city targets for local RE housing efficiency generation, energy operations 80% requirements, one-on-one below 2008 by 2030; efficiency, electric business and residential vehicle adoption and and achieve 100% advising and reducing landfill RE community-wide waste and water emissions through the reductions for key by 2030 implementation of the universal milestone years zero waste ordinance CPH 2025 Climate Plan Four pillars: Energy Copenhagen Be the first carbon adopted in 2012 consumption; energy neutral capital in production; mobility; city 2025 administration initiatives Innovative 1200 Buildings, Melbourne Set the municipal Smart Blocks, City Switch and target of zero net Solar Programs provide emissions by 2020 information and solutions and address barriers to reducing emissions Investing over $20 billion to New York 80% reduction by Mandatory retrofits to adapt to climate change risks. 2050 city buildings and Divesting the City’s pension expanding low-carbon funds from fossil fuels and transportation options suing the five investor-owned fossil fuel companies Washington, Become carbon Climate ready DC plan; Cut emissions by 50% by 2032 DC neutral by 2050 clean energy DC by cutting energy use and increasing the use of renewable energy

148

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Fig. 5.4  Projected climate changes in this century. (Adopted from (IPCC 2014a))

anticipate, absorb, accommodate, and rapidly recover from climate events in its own operations and throughout its value chain” (Cameron et  al. 2018). Marsh & McLennan Companies’ Global Risk Center further extends that climate resilience is “the capacity not only to survive, but also to adapt and succeed in the face of climate change and its direct and indirect impacts, including changes in regulation and policy” (Nottingham and Yeo 2017). In this section, I will discuss how company could build its climate resilience. Before taking actions, corporate management and the board first must develop a robust view of how climate change impacts – directly and indirectly – affect the business performance, company operations and financial implications. So to build

5.3 Building Climate Resilience

149

climate resilience, it starts with the assessment of the climate risks and vulnerabilities, the insights from which could help support organizations’ decision-making process concerning capital allocations, operation management and risk mitigation.

5.3.1  Overall Approach Companies should always leverage their existing enterprise risk management (ERM) system and process to assess the climate risks and develop adaptive measures and add them into the risk registry. ISO 31000:2018, Risk management – Guidelines provides principles, framework and a process for managing risk, which include setting the context, risk assessment and risk treatment. Companies could also use different methods during this risk management process, especially related to climate risk and vulnerability assessment (USAID 2018): • Desktop reviews to synthesize information from existing resources. • Stakeholder consultations and workshops to obtain input through interviews, roundtables or workshops on the impacts of climate and other factors in determining vulnerabilities. • Additional analyses to determine and characterize climate hazards, vulnerabilities or risks in greater detail. Examples of additional analyses are hazard, vulnerability or risk mapping, impact modelling, institutional assessment and economic impact analysis. By combining these methods, the overall approach developed by the author based on her consultancy jobs is illustrated in Fig.  5.5. There are four stages as listed below: • Setting the context In this stage, the consultant and client shall agree the project approach, scope and assessment framework; literature review on climate impacts for specific sector and climate scenarios for specific geographic location also shall be conducted at this stage. • Risk assessment This includes climate risk assessment and vulnerability assessment. The consultant shall help the client to prepare climate risks list and conduct stakeholder engagement to confirm the vulnerabilities. Further risk assessment, prioritization and evaluation shall also be conducted at this stage. • Risk treatment

150

5  Total Carbon Management Model

The next step is to develop adaptation plan and integrate it with the mitigation measures to building climate resilience. Monitoring and reporting systems shall also be developed in this stage. It is highly recommended that climate risk could be incorporated into the company’s risk registry and be managed by using the same ERM system. • Knowledge development Lastly, consultant shall provide necessary trainings for the client to build enough knowledge to continue the exercise by themselves. The consultant and client could also conduct further research on the new and innovative technologies to better adapt to the dynamic climate risks.

Case: New World Development’s Climate Resilience Approach Based on New World Development (NWD) Company Limited’s 2018 Sustainability Report titled “Our Vision Your New World”, below summarizes how NWD builds its climate resilience. On Governance: –– Climate risks have been incorporated into Group’s Risk Management and Internal Control Assessment Checklist. –– The Board oversees climate risks, which form part of the Risk Management Policy. –– The Audit Committee decides the Group’s overall risk level, which includes climate-related risks, and ensures the effectiveness of its risk management system. On Approach: The below figure illustrates how NWD embeds climate risks into its sustainability reporting exercises, such as sustainability materiality test, and the ERM and risk control checklist.

5.3 Building Climate Resilience

151

5.3.2  Climate Risk Assessment

List Out Climate Hazard Climate hazard: the potential occurrence of a climate-related physical event or trend or their physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems and environmental resources. C40 classifies climate hazards into five categories, as shown in Table 5.7, which is a good starting point of climate risk assessment, providing the company assessed is located in urban areas. It also emphasizes that by the end of the twenty-first century, the key trends in climate conditions that may affect climate hazards are likely to include (C40 2015): • Rising average temperatures. • Increasing frequency and intensity of extreme heat.

Fig. 5.5  Overall approach of building climate resilience

Table 5.7  List of city climate hazard (C40 2015) Category Hazard Meteorological Precipitation, wind, lightning, fog, extreme cold and extreme hot Climatological Water scarcity, wild fire Hydrological Flood, wave action, chemical change Geophysical Biological

Mass movement Insects and microorganisms

City climate hazard Storm, heavy snow, severe wind, tornado, typhoon, electrical storm, fog, extreme winter, heat wave, extreme hot weather Drought, forest fire, land fire Surface flood, river flood, coastal flood, groundwater flood, storm surge, salt water intrusion, ocean acidification Landslide, avalanche, rockfall, subsidence Water-borne disease, vector-borne disease, air-borne disease, insect infestation

152

5  Total Carbon Management Model

• Precipitation variability and extreme precipitation events. • Sea level rise. It should be noted that hazard is geographically specified; for instance, in Hong Kong, the probability of heavy snow or rockfall is very low. But the climate change is dynamic, and extreme changes to the local environment may affect the frequency and severity of the climate hazard. Literature reviews shall be conducted to understand the projection of the local climate data, especially based on different RCP scenarios. For business organizations, the impact areas could be defined as: Assess Climate Impacts Climate impacts: effects on natural and human systems of climate hazard. Impacts generally refer to effects on lives, livelihoods, health, ecosystems, economies, societies, cultures, services and infrastructure due to the interaction of climate changes or hazardous climate events occurring within a specific time period and the vulnerability of an exposed society or system. • • • • •

Facilities. Financial. Legal/compliance. Market/reputation. Operational (including human resources).

Climate risks and impacts are sector specific. For instance, for real estate sector, potential impact of the extreme weather like typhoon could include increased costs to repair or replace damaged or destroyed assets, value impairment, property downtime and business disruption, etc. (ULI 2019). Literature reviews shall be conducted to understand the climate risks and impacts in specific sector under assessment. A risk heat map is a tool that could be used to present the results at this moment. It represents the evaluations of the likelihood or probability of a hazard and the severity of its impact. An example of risk heat map matrix is shown in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8  Example of risk heat map Likelihood

Very unlikely

Unlikely

Moderate

Likely

Very likely

Severity

(90%)

Extreme

5

10

15

20

25

High

4

8

12

16

20

Medium

3

6

9

12

15

Low

2

4

6

8

10

Negligible

1

2

3

4

5

5.3 Building Climate Resilience

153

Company could define its own calculation method for assessment. For instance, in Table 5.8, the likelihood is defined based on IPCC’s probability definition. For an acute event, frequency is normally used to present likelihood. To facilitate the calculation, scores could be defined for each level of severity or likelihood. For instance, in this 5 × 5 heat map, if 1 to 5 points are assigned to each level of the likelihood (L) and severity (S), the risk impact score can be calculated as L × S, as shown in Table 5.8. Higher score means identified risks with more critical impact. Climate Vulnerability Assessment The extent of the impact depends on the magnitude of climatic changes affecting a particular system (exposure), the characteristics of the system (sensitivity) and the ability of people and ecosystems to deal with the resulting effects (adaptive capacities of the system). These three factors determine the vulnerability of the system, as shown in Fig. 5.6.

Exposure – the presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems; environmental functions, services and resources; infrastructure; or economic, social or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected. Sensitivity – the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change. Adaptive capacity – the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities or to cope with the consequences.

Fig. 5.6  Vulnerability determined by exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity

154

5  Total Carbon Management Model

Climate hazard such as extreme weather events could have devastating effects on vulnerable property and critical infrastructure, with lasting impacts across companies and its communities. There are different methods for vulnerability assessment as either following top-down or bottom-up approaches. Top-down approaches start with an analysis of climate change and its impacts, while bottom-up approaches start with an analysis of the people affected by climate change (GIZ 2014). By using top-down approach, after conducting geographic portfolio review of the climate hazard for the company, the next step is to map demographic and infrastructure vulnerabilities to natural hazards and thereby identify the aggregated weather exposure with respect to location, facility and asset. Bottom-up approaches start with underlying development context of why people are sensitive and exposed to a given climate hazard like flood. Sensitivity to climatic change is generally high when societies depend on natural resources or ecosystems, e.g. agriculture and coastal zones and poor communities are especially vulnerable to climate change due to their limited access to resources, secure housing, proper infrastructure, insurance, technology and information (GIZ 2014). Vulnerability (V = Exposure + Sensitivity – Adaptive Capacity) could then be assessed by using the defined weighting method based on analytic hierarchy process (Hammill et al. 2013). Assess and Prioritize the Climate Risks Risk: The potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, recognizing the diversity of values. Risk is often represented as probability of occurrence of hazard or trends multiplied by the impacts if these events or trends occur. Climate risk refers to the risks of climate impacts.

Risk results from the interaction of vulnerability, exposure and hazard. Climate risk rating (CRR) can be assessed by the following equation: CRR = [ Likelihood × Severity ] × [Vulnerability ]





If Likelihood scored from 1 to 5, severity scored from 1 to 5 and vulnerability scored from 1 to 10, then the CRR could be assessed by Table 5.9. A general idea and process to assess climate hazards, vulnerabilities and climate risk has been introduced in this section. It has to emphasize again that results from climate risk assessment should be incorporated into company’s enterprise risk management (ERM) framework and system. It also should be noted that company Table 5.9  Climate risk rating CRR Score

Extreme >200

High 150–200

Medium 100–150

Low 50–100

Negligible 50 years) periods of time. The net carbon emission from composting process is the subtraction difference of the above potential GHG emissions and carbon storage. USEPA (2006) and IPCC (2006) published different equations and models to estimate the net carbon emissions from the compost, depending on degradable organic carbon content and C/N ratio of treated feed stock, compost site operation, compost application, etc. Interested readers could refer to the above two references for further reading.

7.5.4  Combustion Waste incineration is defined as the combustion of solid and liquid waste in controlled incineration facilities. Types of waste incinerated include municipal solid waste (MSW), industrial waste, hazardous waste, clinical waste and sewage sludge. These processes include incineration with and without energy recovery, production of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and industrial co-combustion. Incineration has been widely applied in many developed countries, especially those with limited space for landfilling such as Japan and many European countries. Combustion of waste will release GHGs including CO2, CH4 and N2O. Normally, emissions of CO2 from waste incineration are more significant than CH4 and N2O emissions, and combustion of MSW results in emissions of CO2 (because nearly all of the carbon in MSW is converted to CO2 under optimal conditions) and N2O (USEPA 2006). It should be noted that the climate-relevant CO2 emissions from waste incineration are determined by fossil carbon content of the waste. The proportion of carbon of biogenic origin is usually in the range of 33–50%. The allocation to fossil or biogenic carbon has a crucial influence on the calculated amounts of climate-relevant CO2 emissions (Johnke 2000). It should also be noted that traditional air pollutants from combustion such as non-methane volatile organic

232

7  Carbon Reduction Solutions

compounds (NMVOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx) are of major concern to public health, but not counted in the GHG inventory. Incineration reduces the mass of waste and can offset fossil fuel use. GHG emissions are avoided at facilities with energy recovery in a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant. The electricity produced by a WTE plant replaces electricity that would otherwise be provided by a local utility power plant, where fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas are normally burned to generate electricity. The utility carbon emission is then avoided. The avoided utility emission is affected by three factors: (1) the energy content of mixed waste and of each separate waste material stream, (2) the combustion system efficiency in converting energy in waste to delivered electricity and (3) the emission conversion factor (kgCO2e/kWh) of the local electric utility plant. The net GHG emission from waste combustion is the avoided emission subtracted by the emissions from the combustion. T · PARK – Sewage Sludge Incineration Plant in Hong Kong Burning is a highly effective method of sewage sludge treatment. Advanced incineration technology through the high-tech thermal process is adopted to ensure efficient and reliable treatment of sludge. With two plants of four incineration trains in the facility, T · PARK can handle a maximum capacity of 2,000 tonnes of sludge per day. The heat energy generated from the incineration process is recovered and turned into electricity that can support the needs of the entire facility. When running at full capacity, it can produce up to 2 megawatts (MW) of surplus electricity for the public power grid (can support 4,000 household), which is an impeccable example of “waste-to-energy” in action. After incineration, sludge will be converted into ash and residues – a total reduction of 90% of the original sludge volume. This dramatically cuts down the quantity of waste to be disposed of in the landfills and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases by up to 237,000 tonnes a year. Source: www.tpark.hk

7.5.5  Landfilling Sanitary landfilling has been the most commonly used waste disposal method, especially for MSW, and according to IPCC, landfill methane is the largest contributor to GHG emissions of post-consumer waste management (Bogner et  al. 2007). Figure 7.22 illustrates the organic decomposition processes and carbon mass balance in landfill. When waste is dumped into the landfill site, the organic matter in the waste is first decomposed by aerobic microorganisms until oxygen is consumed. CO2 is produced in this initial stage. Anaerobic decomposition is then started with the

7.5  Resource Management

233

Fig. 7.22  Waste decomposition processes and carbon mass balance in landfills

hydrolysis process, through which the complex organic molecules are broken down into simple sugars, amino acids and fatty acids. The next stage in the anaerobic process is acidogenesis, where organic compounds are further broken down and volatile fatty acids, ammonia and CO2 are produced. Simple molecules are further digested by acetogenic bacteria to produce acetic acid, CO2 and H2. The final stage of anaerobic decomposition is methanogenesis, where all the intermediate products of the above processes are converted to CH4, CO2 and water, which make up the majority of landfill gases. Once the methanogenic stage begins, landfill gas generated is composed of approximately 50% CH4 and 50% CO2. But landfill gas as collected generally has a higher CH4 concentration than CO2 concentration (sometimes as much as a 60:40 ratio), because some of the CO2 is dissolved in the leachate as part of the carbonate system (CO2 ↔ H2CO3 ↔ HCO3− ↔ CO32−) (USEPA 2006). As shown in Fig. 7.22, in view of the landfill as a system, inputted carbon could be released from the system as the gases, such as CO2, CH4 and VOCs; it can also be released with the outflow of the leachate from the system, while the remaining carbon could be stored in the system. VOCs released from landfills may include saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons, acidic hydrocarbons, organic alcohols, aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated compounds, sulphur compounds and mercaptans, and the total amounts of those VOCs are usually below 1% (by volume) of the total landfill gas emissions (Saral

234

7  Carbon Reduction Solutions

et al. 2009). USEPA also reported that VOCs would have a small role in the overall carbon balance, as concentrations of CH4 and CO2 will both be hundreds of times larger (USEPA 2006). Landfill leachates are defined as the aqueous effluent generated as a consequence of rainwater percolation through wastes, biochemical processes in waste’s cells and the inherent water content of wastes themselves (Renou et  al. 2008). With its high concentration in ammonia and organic compound, leachate is required to be collected and treated before discharge to avoid contamination of underground water. If the leachate is recirculated to the landfill as a large bioreactor, the leachate volume is significantly reduced, but recirculation could enhance the organic degradation, which results in the increased GHG emissions during leachate recirculation (Wang et al. 2014). CH4 and N2O produced from the leachate treatment processes is the second largest GHG emission from landfills (Bogner et al. 2007). It is affected by the age of landfill, weather conditions, waste types and composition and different treatment processes. Wang et al. compared the GHG emissions from leachate treatment systems with young and aged landfill leachate that found that N2O is the dominant GHG contributing more than 95% of total emission from both systems, while system with aged leachate is lower in total GHG emission (Wang et al. 2014). The decomposition rate of materials in landfills is affected by a number of factors, such as waste type and composition, moisture, temperature and microorganisms. Organic matter contains varying amounts of cellulose (the main component of all plant tissues and fibres), hemicellulose (the constituent of plant material that binds with cellulose to form the network of fibres) and lignin (the integral part of the cell wall that fills space between cellulose and hemicellulose). While cellulose and hemicellulose easily biodegrade, lignin does not. In addition, the presence of lignin can also prevent the decomposition of cellulose and hemicellulose. Materials with high lignin content (such as newspapers and branches) have higher landfill carbon storage potential than materials with lower lignin content (such as food scraps) (USEPA 2010). The GHG inventory from landfill is then considered as follows: • CO2 from organic decomposition in landfill: It is not counted as if not in landfills it would also be decomposed in a natural environment. • CH4 from landfill gas: It is the major GHG source from landfills and CH4 is counted as an anthropogenic GHG, because even though it is derived from sustainably harvested biogenic sources, degradation would not result in CH4 emissions if not for deposition in landfill. • Carbon reduction or avoided utility emission from CH4 recovery: CH4 could be recovered by flaring or generation of heat and electricity from it. • CH4 and N2O emissions from leachate treatment facility: If leachate is recirculated, the increased emission is already counted in CH4 emission; if it is treated separated in a treatment facility on-site or off-site, both emissions should be calculated. • Energy-related emission: emissions from fuel or electricity used for transportation of waste and materials and machinery used on site should be covered.

7.5  Resource Management

235

• Carbon storage: Organic matter could not be decomposed completely, and the remaining carbon is stored in the landfill. Because this carbon storage would not normally occur under natural conditions, this is counted as a carbon sink. However, fossil carbon such as plastics that remains in the landfill is not counted as stored carbon (USEPA 2006).

7.5.6  Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is a process which breaks down organic matter into simpler chemical components in lack of oxygen. The decomposition process is illustrated in Fig. 7.22 after aerobic digestion in landfills. Anaerobic digestion is applicable to treat organic waste such as sewage sludge, food waste, manures, green and yard waste, etc. As shown in Fig.  7.23 (the diagram in the blue square), the collected organic waste is first sent to the pretreatment facility, where the feedstock is better mixed, the moisture content is adjusted and undesirable materials such as large items and inert materials, e.g. plastic and glass, are removed as the rejected materials, which are normally disposed at landfills. The rejection rate depends on the type and composition of the waste treated. Pretreated organic waste is then sent to the digester, where anaerobic digestion takes place. Digesters can be classified as dry or wet, as well as in relation to the temperature and the number of stages, to suit for different types of organic waste with optimum operating conditions.

Fig. 7.23  A typical anaerobic digestion process

236

7  Carbon Reduction Solutions

After digestion, the organic matter is broken down by the microorganisms, and biogas is released, and digested solid is left behind as digestate. Biogas can be purified by removing the CO2 and water vapour and then used in a CHP unit to generate heat and electricity. The by-product digestate can be directly applied to agriculture lands or be further processed into compost to increase its quality as an organic fertilizer for agriculture applications. The GHG emissions and avoidance related to anaerobic digestion cover the following: • GHG emissions from –– Transport of waste materials. –– Pretreatment and digester operations. Pretreatment process normally includes grinding, screening and mixing the feedstock before they are fed into the ­reactor, where electricity is consumed. In the wet digester, digestate is dewatered and electricity is used in the dewatering process. For the dry digester, the digestate is removed without dewatering; however, more diesel is needed for dry digestion operations as it involves the additional use of front-end loaders to move materials. –– Treatment and transport of rejected materials. –– Biogas collection and utilization. Biogas cannot be fully utilized, and around 2% CH4 is leaked during the digestion process, according to USEPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) (USEPA 2019). –– Digestate composting. Fugitive emissions of CH4 and N2O are detected during the curing process (USEPA 2019). –– Transport of compost and soil application. • GHG sink or avoidance from –– Avoided utility emission. Generated heat and electricity from biogas offset the emission from fossil fuel combustion on-site and the utility emissions. Normally surplus electricity (i.e. the electricity generated from CHP minus the electricity used on-site) is exported to the local grid. –– Carbon storage. Similar to what is discussed in Sect. 7.5.3 of compost, carbon from digestate applied to agricultural lands remains stored in the soil through two main mechanisms: direct storage of carbon in depleted soils and carbon stored in non-reactive humus compounds. –– Avoided fertilizer. When the compost is applied on land, it could replace the use of synthetic fertilizer, which is produced using fossil fuels. In 2018/2019, collaborating with UK’s environmental consulting firm Eunomia, we at University of Edinburgh’s Hong Kong Centre for Carbon innovation helped HKEPD to develop the methodology to calculate the carbon reduction of the Hong Kong’s first anaerobic digestion facility for food waste. After reviewing the different methodologies in the literatures and overseas cases such as US WARM mentioned above, UK’s Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) developed by the Greater London Authority and the reporting scheme for food waste recycling used by the South Korean, the following emissions sources are therefore taken into account:

References

237

• Fuel use in transport systems used for waste collection • Treatment process emissions, including those associated with rejected material or contaminants and those associated with energy used in the process • Emissions associated with the management of digestate or compost (including those associated with dewatering, the use of the product on land and transport emissions) • Avoided fossil emission by energy generation • Avoided emission from compost application It is noted that since the carbon reduction baseline is that food waste is sent to be disposed at landfill site in Hong Kong, the transportation of waste and rejected material are both counted, while in most case studies, they are out of the system boundary. Carbon storage and emission of compost transport and land application are not counted in this case. O · PARK1 – First Organic Resources Recovery Centre in Hong Kong O · PARK1, locating at Siu Ho Wan of North Lantau, adopts anaerobic digestion technology to convert food waste into biogas for electricity generation, while the residues from the process can be produced as compost for landscaping and agriculture use. O · PARK1 is capable of handling 200 tonnes of food waste per day. The biogas will be used to generate electricity, and apart from the internal use within O · PARK1, about 14 million kWh of surplus electricity, which is equivalent to the power consumption by some 3,000 households, can be exported each year. The detailed processes could be referred to its website: https://www.opark.gov.hk/en/process.php.

References Arup (2018) Energy systems: a view from 2035. What will a future energy market look like? Energy System in 2035 BCA (2018) Super low energy building technology roadmap. Building and Construction Authority, Singapore Bendell J (2018) Deep adaptation: a map for navigating climate tragedy. IFLAS Occasional Paper 2, 27 July 2018. www.iflas.info. Updated in December 2018 Bogner J, Abdelrafie Ahmed M, Diaz C, Faaij A, Gao Q, Hashimoto S, Mareckova K, Pipatti R, Zhang T (2007) Waste management. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York Braungart M, McDonough W (2002) Cradle to cradle. Remaking the way we make things. Vintage, London, pp 109–110 ClimateWorks Australia, ANU, CSIRO, CoPS (2014) Pathways to deep decarbonization in 2050: how Australia can prosper in a low carbon world: technical report. Published by ClimateWorks Australia, Melbourne, Victoria CNBC (2016) Tesla Model S owner protests Singapore’s carbon emissions surcharge. Published 8 Mar 2016. Cnbc.com. Accessed 30 June 2019

238

7  Carbon Reduction Solutions

Darko A, Zhang C, Chan APC (2017) Drivers for green building: a review of empirical studies. Habitat Int 60:34–49 Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (2015) Pathways to deep decarbonization 2015 report – executive summary, SDSN – IDDRI Denis A, Jotzo F, Ferraro S, Jones A, Kautto N, Kelly R, Skarbek A, Thwaites J, Adams P, Graham P, Hatfield-Dodds S (2014) Pathways to deep decarbonization in 2050  – how Australia can prosper in a low carbon world. The Australian report of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations EMSD (2015) Code of practice for building energy audit. Electrical and Mechanical Services Department EMSD (2018) Hong Kong energy end-use data 2018. The Energy Efficiency Office, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Issued Sept 2018 Faisal A, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Currie G (2019) Understanding autonomous vehicles: a systematic literature review on capability, impact, planning and policy. J Transp Land Use 12(1):45–72 Four Twenty Seven (2018) Climate risk, real estate, and the bottom line Four Twenty Seven and GeoPhy Greenblatt JB, Shaheen S (2015) Automated vehicles, on-demand mobility, and environmental impacts. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep 2:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-015-0038-5 Haas H (2011) Harald Haas: wireless data from every light bulb. Harald Haas at TEDGlobal 201. Ted.com. Accessed June 2019 Hawken P (2017) Drawdown the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin Books, New York Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2012) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):158–160 He S (2018) Tax breaks alone won’t promote e-mobility. Published on 14 June 2018. www.ejinsight.com. Accessed July 2019 Higuera J, Llenas A, Carreras J (2018) Trends in smart lighting for the Internet of Things Published in ArXiv. arXiv:1809.00986 [cs.CY]. 2018 Hui SCM (2009) Study of thermal and energy performance of green roof systems. Final report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong IEA (2018) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 2018 highlights IPCC (2006) Chapter 4: Biological treatment of solid waste IPCC/IGES. In: IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol 5: Waste. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ppd.htm IPCC (2014a) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, 151 pp IPCC (2014b) Transport. In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York Johnke B (2000) Emission from waste incineration. In: Report on good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Chapter 5, Section 3. The report was accepted by IPCC Plenary at its 16th session held in Montreal, 1–8 May 2000 King (2007) King review on low carbon cars. Part I: The potential for CO2 reduction. October 2007. Crown Copyright Kromer MA, Heywood JB (2007) Electric powertrains: opportunities and challenges in the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet. Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP Leung KH, Leung YC, Chan HS, Cheng D, Shek T, Lam CK, Cheng WK, Koo CP, Yun D (2010) Carbon audit toolkit for small and medium enterprises in Hong Kong. The University of Hong Kong. ISBN: 978-962-85138-7-1

References

239

Liu G, Shek LC, Lee SF, Li D (2013) Journey of energy efficient lighting technology and development of energy efficiency requirements of lighting installation in building energy code. In: 5th international lighting symposium 2013 on high quality and energy efficient lighting – realities & issues, 18 Oct 2013, Hong Kong Liu Q, Chen Y, Tian C, Zheng X, Li J (2016) Strategic deliberation on development of low-carbon energy system in China. Adv Clim Chang Res 7:26–34 McKinsey (2019) Global energy perspective 2019: reference case. Summary. Energy Insight by McKinsey MIT Technology Review Insights (2019) Self-driving cars take the wheel. Advanced technologies come together to get autonomous vehicles driving safely and efficiently. MIT Technology Review Insights, 15 Feb 2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612754/self-drivingcars-take-the-wheel/. Accessed July 2019 Mitchell WJ, Borroni-Bird CE, Burns LD (2010) Reinventing the automobile: personal urban mobility for the 21st century. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Morau D, Libelle T, Garde F (2012, 2012) Performance evaluation of green roof for thermal protection of buildings in Reunion Island. Energy Procedia, Elsevier (14):1008–1016. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1047 Murtagh N, Roberts A, Hind R (2016) The relationship between motivations of architectural designers and environmentally sustainable construction design. Constr Manag Econ 34(1):61– 75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1178392 Ng S, Lai C, Liao P, Lao M, Lau W, Govada S, Spruijt W (2016) Measuring and improving walkability in Hong Kong. Final report, Civic Exchange and UDP International Nikkei (2019) Nissan-Renault alliance to join Google on self-driving cars. Automaker group goes all-in on outside partnerships for future of driving. By Furukawa K and Yamamoto N, Nikkei staff writers, 5 Feb 2019. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Nissan-Renaultalliance-to-join-Google-on-self-driving-cars. Accessed July 2019 Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman AM, Söderman ML, Van Mierlo J (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles  – what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1866–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11367-014-0788-0 NRC (2019) 2019 Fuel consumption guide. Natural Resources Canada. Updated on vehicles. nrcan.gc.ca OECD (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for mitigation from materials management within OECD countries. Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Environment Directorate, Environment Policy Committee, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 28 Mar 2012. ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2010)1/FINAL PRI (2016) Responsible investment market update: a snapshot of signatory action PRI (2018) Impact investing market map Renou S, Givaudan JG, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F, Moulin P (2008) Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard Mater 150:468–493 Saral A, Demira S, Yıldız S (2009) Assessment of odorous VOCs released from a main MSW landfill site in Istanbul-Turkey via a modelling approach. J Hazard Mater 168:338–345 Shaheen S, Cohen A, Yelchuru B, Sarkhili S (2017) Mobility on demand operational concept report. Produced by Booz Allen Hamilton, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. Final report – September 2017. FHWA-JPO-18-611 Shaheen S (2018) Shared mobility: the potential of ride hailing and pooling. UC Berkeley: Transportation Sustainability Research Center. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/46p6n2sk 1 March 2018 Sung K (2015) A review on upcycling: current body of literature, knowledge gaps and a way forward. In: The ICECESS 2015: 17th international conference on environmental, cultural, economic and social sustainability, Venice, Italy, 13–14 Apr 2015

240

7  Carbon Reduction Solutions

Teng F et al (2015) Pathways to deep decarbonization in China, SDSN – IDDRI UNEP (2017) The Global Status Report 2017: towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector. Prepared by Thibaut Abergel, Brian Dean and John Dulac of the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC). ISBN: 978-92-807-3686-1 UNEP (2018) 2018 Global Status Report: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. Prepared by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC). ISBN: 978-92-807-3729-5 USEPA (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases. A life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks, 3rd edn. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC USEPA (2010) Landfill carbon storage in EPA’s waste reduction model, 27 Oct 2010. https://www. epa.gov/warm/landfilling-and-landfill-carbon-storage-waste-reduction-model-warm Accessed July 2019 USEPA (2019) Documentation for greenhouse gas emission and energy factors used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Management practices chapters. Prepared by ICF For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Wang Y, Teter J, Sperling D (2011) China’s soaring vehicle population: even greater than forecasted? Energy Policy 39:3296–3306 Wang X, Jia M, Chen X, Xu Y, Lin X, Kao CM, Chen S (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: a comparison of young and aged landfill. Waste Manag 34:1156–1164 Williams JH, Haley B, Kahrl F, Moore J, Jones AD, Torn MS, McJeon H (2014) Pathways to deep decarbonization in the United States. The U.S. report of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. Revision with technical supplement, 16 Nov 2015

Index

A Active and passive design, 195, 199, 202–205 Adaptation and mitigation, 6, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 77, 83, 86, 91, 92, 105, 123, 124, 146, 149, 150, 155–158, 161, 166, 176, 178, 211, 212, 227 Adaptive measures, 149 Anaerobic digestion (AD), 10, 34, 88, 108, 227, 228, 235–237 Anthropogenic evidence, 6–10 Avoidance, 96, 105, 106, 110, 236 B Benefits, 28, 58, 69, 71–73, 78, 79, 83, 85, 86, 88, 102, 104, 105, 116, 118, 134, 178, 179, 197, 200, 201, 203, 206, 222, 225 Boundary setting, 27–35 Building climate resilience, 146–156, 158 Building management and operation, 206 Business drivers, 91–95, 174, 180, 182, 183, 196 C Carbon footprint, vii, 21–23, 25–66, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99, 116, 118, 119, 124–133, 135, 136, 138–144, 162, 163, 167, 168, 170, 175, 182, 218 Carbon labeling schemes, 64–65 Carbon management, 16, 49, 88, 91–120, 123–158, 161–183, 227 Carbon Management Maturity Model (CM3), 161–164

Carbon market, 72–76, 79, 142 Carbon measurement, 55 Carbon reduction solutions, 103, 138, 173, 185–237 Carbon trading and offsetting, 69–88 Case studies/study, 116–120, 134–146, 185, 187, 189–192, 237 Cleaner fuels, 212, 214, 215, 220 Cleaner vehicles, 212, 215 Climate basics, 165 Climate change, 1–24, 26, 28, 56, 57, 63, 64, 77, 82, 93, 94, 101, 104, 115, 118–120, 123, 124, 142, 143, 146, 148, 152–154, 156, 162, 165, 180, 191, 193, 197 Climate change evidence, 6–8 Climate risk assessment, 149, 151–155 Climate risks and impacts, 10–16, 21, 26, 53, 59, 123, 146, 149–156, 161, 197 Cogeneration and trigeneration, 106, 107 Combustion, 33, 34, 37, 38, 80, 107, 186, 212, 214, 227, 228, 231, 232, 236 Company background, 171 Company level, 162, 164, 166, 172, 173, 175, 178, 182 Company level carbon analysis, 172, 173 Composting, 227, 230, 231, 236 D Data, 7, 26, 91, 130, 163, 204 Decarbonization, 21, 101, 104, 185–187, 189–194 Definition, 14, 22, 57, 91, 97, 124–126, 151–154, 199, 202, 210, 225, 230

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 S. W. W. Zhou, Carbon Management for a Sustainable Environment, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35062-8

241

Index

242 E Emergence of carbon as an asset, 69–71 Emissions from transportation, 57, 80, 140, 145, 173, 191–193, 211–213, 218, 220, 221, 227, 228, 231, 234 Emission trading benefits, 71–72 G GHG emissions, 17, 18, 25, 27–30, 33, 34, 43–45, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80, 83, 97, 99, 101, 106, 123–126, 128, 130–132, 135, 139, 145, 156, 157, 163, 173, 186, 187, 189, 213, 214, 217, 225–232, 234, 236 GHG related to material life cycle, 227 Green building labelling schemes, 195, 197, 207 The Greenhouse effect, 4–6, 21 Greenhouse gases (GHG), 4–6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 22, 34, 39, 54, 57, 65, 77, 79, 91, 94, 104, 105, 117, 130, 143, 145, 232 H Health, 10, 13, 20, 105, 115, 144, 151, 152, 165, 166, 171, 172, 198–202, 220, 232 I Innovations, 54, 71, 76, 95, 105, 142, 143, 193, 194, 222, 224, 230, 236 International and local standards, 26, 27, 38, 51, 78, 130, 139 K Kyoto Protocol, 17–19, 75, 82, 86, 119, 182, 183 L Landfilling, 140, 229, 231–235 Life cycle assessment (LCA), 56–63, 65, 164, 170, 182, 218, 219 Low-carbon building development, 207 Low-carbon buildings, 195–197, 203, 206, 207, 210 O Operational boundaries, 27, 32–36, 51, 91, 116, 130, 175, 178

P Paris Agreement, 17–19, 21, 69, 95, 124, 156, 180, 197, 198 Process level, 162, 165, 166, 168, 169, 178 Product carbon footprint (PCF), 56–66, 170, 182, 183 Product carbon labelling, 173 Product level, 163–165, 169, 170, 173, 182, 227 Project-based mechanisms, 73–75, 82, 86 Public transport and behavioural change, 81, 94, 173, 175, 189, 212, 218–220, 222 Q Quantifying the emissions, 36–44 R Reduction, 11, 26, 70, 92, 123, 163, 187 Reduction, recycling and upcycling, 229–231 Renewable, 11, 77, 80–82, 85, 106, 108–110, 124, 139, 141–143, 146, 176, 180, 185–187, 189, 190, 196, 205, 209 Resource management, 221, 227 S Smart mobility, 212, 222, 223 Smart transportation, 175 Solutions, 21, 22, 51, 54–56, 71, 75, 96, 103–105, 108, 110, 112, 118, 123, 138, 161, 163, 169, 173, 174, 180, 185–237 Solutions for business, 193, 194 Sustainable, 3, 18, 20, 21, 60, 71, 73, 91, 94, 112, 114, 117, 119, 134, 142, 145, 155, 163, 185, 186, 189, 194, 198, 222 Sustainable development goals (SDGs), 20, 21, 85, 142, 198 Switch, 80, 96, 106–110, 144, 176, 186, 189, 190, 193, 196, 201, 204, 220, 230 U United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 8, 16–20, 75, 77, 82, 87, 119 V Vehicle efficiency, 212–215 Voluntary market, 72, 76, 77, 83 W Waste-to-energy (WtE), 107, 108, 232